TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 75 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132294; 14446-4_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131185; 14446-4_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131158; 14446-4_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131115; 14446-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131107; 14446-4_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131090; 14446-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 73 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131026; 14446-4_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131023; 14446-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 72 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131016; 14446-4_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131006; 14446-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 71 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131001; 14446-4_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130994; 14446-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130980; 14446-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130916; 14446-4_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130623; 14446-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130604; 14446-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130581; 14446-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1987-01-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=41&rft.spage=29&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chronicle+of+Higher+Education&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129705; 14446-4_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129663; 14446-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129597; 14446-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 68 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129596; 14446-4_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 67 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129565; 14446-4_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129525; 14446-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Chronicle+of+Higher+Education&rft.atitle=At+the+Last+Hour%2C+It%27s+Financial+Aid+101+for+These+High-School+Students&rft.au=Supiano%2C+Beckie&rft.aulast=Supiano&rft.aufirst=Beckie&rft.date=2009-05-08&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=35&rft.spage=A1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chronicle+of+Higher+Education&rft.issn=00095982&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129390; 14446-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=Development+of+a+Socio-Economic-Status+Index+Using+United+States+Census+Data.&rft.au=Grosset%2C+Jane+M.%3BHawk%2C+Thomas+R.&rft.aulast=Grosset&rft.aufirst=Jane&rft.date=1986-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128950; 14446-4_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1973-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Governor%27s+Commission+on+the+Status+of+Women%3A+Five+Year+Report.&rft.title=Governor%27s+Commission+on+the+Status+of+Women%3A+Five+Year+Report.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 69 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128937; 14446-4_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128913; 14446-4_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128896; 14446-4_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128891; 14446-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128868; 14446-4_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128867; 14446-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128846; 14446-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 65 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128817; 14446-4_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128808; 14446-4_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128803; 14446-4_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128781; 14446-4_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128760; 14446-4_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876255798; 14445-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876255797; 14445-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876255796; 14445-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876255795; 14445-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876255794; 14445-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876252087; 14445-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 876252086; 14445-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 754907302; 14445 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled across the area over a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, and water disposal facilities would be constructed to support the proposed development. Total new surface disturbance under the proposed action would be approximately 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the total Greater Natural Buttes Project Area. The Resource Protection Alternative would limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would continue on state and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop the subsurface resources in the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. The increased supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons would contribute to the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 4,369 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus would be disturbed, 142 cultural resource sites could be disturbed, 1,018 active animal unit months would be lost on existing grazing allotments, incremental impacts to visual resources would occur, and traffic volume would increase by 20,948 vehicle miles. Wildlife species affected would include: pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse. Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources would include erosion and sedimentation from increased surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants. The Optimal Recovery Alternative could result in air quality impacts from ozone. 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: 100253, Draft EIS--467 pages and maps, Appendices--392 pages and maps, July 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 10 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255175; 14435-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 9 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255173; 14435-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 8 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255170; 14435-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 7 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255167; 14435-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 6 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876255165; 14435-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 18 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254357; 14435-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 17 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254354; 14435-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 16 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254352; 14435-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 23 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254210; 14435-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 22 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254208; 14435-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 21 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254206; 14435-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 20 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254203; 14435-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 19 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254199; 14435-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 3 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254195; 14435-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 2 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254191; 14435-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254184; 14435-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 24 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254174; 14435-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 15 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254171; 14435-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 14 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254167; 14435-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 13 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254166; 14435-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 12 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254164; 14435-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 11 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254160; 14435-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 5 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254159; 14435-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. [Part 4 of 24] T2 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 876254157; 14435-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-85 EXTENSION FROM I-59/I-20 NEAR THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE TO I-65 NEAR MONTGOMERY, PORTIONS OF AUTAUGA, DALLAS, HALE, LOWNDES, MARENGO, MONTGOMERY, PERRY, AND SUMTER COUNTIES, ALABAMA. AN - 754909710; 14435 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new extension of Interstate 85 (I-85) from I-59/I-20 northeast of Cuba, Alabama and near the Mississippi state line to I-65 near Montgomery, Alabama is proposed. Six of the counties in the study area, Dallas, Hale, Lowndes, Marengo, Perry, and Sumter, are located in the Black Belt, a group of primarily agricultural counties with dark, rich soil, extending east to west across central Alabama, that currently experience high rates of poverty, illiteracy, and infant mortality. Portions of Autauga and Montgomery counties are also included in the study area. Rural Alabama lacks interstate level roadways and the proposed I-85 extension is one of several initiatives to improve transportation infrastructure within the Black Belt region which could provide opportunities for economic growth. The proposed project would be constructed as a multi-lane, access-controlled freeway on new location, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour. The roadway would consist of four 12-foot lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders, six-foot paved inside shoulders, and a 90-foot depressed, grassed median. A wide range of alternatives, including mass transit and transportation system management were evaluated in relation to the project. This draft EIS considers a No Build Alternative and 36 build alternatives which vary from 113 to 129 miles in length. Depending on the alternative, 21 to 29 interchanges would be constructed and a nominal 400-foot right-of-way would be used. Two commercially navigable waterways, the Tombigbee River and the Alabama River, would be crossed. The estimated cost of implementing the preferred alternative is $2.4 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide jobs and increase business activity in various sectors of the regional economy during the construction period and afterwards. Traffic congestion in Selma, Demopolis, and Uniontown would be reduced by the diversion of through traffic and trucks. Safety would be improved by reducing the number of trucks on local, two-lane roads and through grade separation at railroad crossings. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The freeway footprint under the preferred alternative would occupy 7,000 acres, including 755 acres of wetlands and 1,254 acres of floodplain; require relocation of 52 residences, 38 of which are minority-owned, and one commercial property; and impact seven potential archaeological sites. Noise increases of 15 decibels or greater would impact eight receptors. Twelve of the build alternatives, but not the preferred alternative, would have adverse visual effects associated with the I-85 interchange with the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail in Montgomery County. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-59), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100243, Volume I--386 pages and maps, Volume II--450 pages, Volume III--485 pages, June 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AL-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Alabama KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=I-85+EXTENSION+FROM+I-59%2FI-20+NEAR+THE+MISSISSIPPI+STATE+LINE+TO+I-65+NEAR+MONTGOMERY%2C+PORTIONS+OF+AUTAUGA%2C+DALLAS%2C+HALE%2C+LOWNDES%2C+MARENGO%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+PERRY%2C+AND+SUMTER+COUNTIES%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montgomery, Alabama; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 8 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873133676; 14389-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 7 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873133674; 14389-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 6 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873133673; 14389-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 5 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873133672; 14389-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 4 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873133670; 14389-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 1 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873133341; 14389-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 3 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873132669; 14389-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 2 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873132667; 14389-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 10 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873131682; 14389-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). [Part 9 of 10] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 873131679; 14389-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S SOUTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT, ELK AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2002). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S SOUTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT, ELK AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2002). AN - 816526888; 14388-100237_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Continued operations and expansion of the Gold Quarry open pit mine and ore processing operations at Newmont Gold Corporation's South Operations Area in Elk and Eureka counties, Nevada were proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the South Operations Area Project Amendment (SOAPA) was signed July 26, 2002, and authorized Newmont to continue and expand gold mining operations. Newmont has been mining at this location since 1981. Since the Bureau of Land Management's authorization in 2002, much of the SOAPA project has been constructed and is being operated by Newmont. Project components include: deepening the Gold Quarry mine pit by approximately 350 feet; installing additional dewatering wells that discharge to Maggie Creek six miles above its confluence with the Humboldt River; expanding waste rock disposal facilities and leach facilities; and constructing associated ancillary facilities. Project components which have not been completed or have been partially completed include the James Creek waste rock disposal facility, and expansion of the property and non-property leach pad. This final supplement to the final EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SOAPA project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land within Newmont's South Operations Area to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. Mining operations continue to employ local workers at the highest average salary of any industry in Nevada and provide tax revenues to the affected counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations continue to degrade riparian and wetland habitat and vegetation could be lost, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Runoff and drainage from waste rock storage facilities, leach pads, tailing impoundments, process ponds and other facilities could impact both surface and groundwater quality. Acid-rock drainage has occurred at refractory ore stockpiles at Newmont's South Operations Area. Groundwater cones-of-depression created by dewatering operations could create effects in regional groundwater drawdown, increasing potential for long-term impacts to aquatic organisms and associated habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral and Mining Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0358D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0263F, Volume 26, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0354D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100237, 239 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT+AMENDMENT%2C+ELK+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT+AMENDMENT%2C+ELK+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S LEEVILLE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2002). AN - 754909731; 14389 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold mine, known as the Leeville Project, at a site in the Carlin Trend approximately 20 miles northwest of Carlin in Eureka County, Nevada was proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the Leeville Project was signed September 25, 2002, and authorized Newmont Mining Corporation to begin development of the mine. The project consists of the West Leeville, Four Corners, and Turf ore bodies accessed by five shafts. Ancillary facilities include a waste rock disposal facility, a refractory ore stockpile, facilities to support backfill of mined-out stopes, installation and operation of mine dewatering wells, a water treatment plant, and a pipeline/canal system to discharge excess mine water to existing infiltration and irrigation systems in the Boulder Valley. All facilities and surface disturbance would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities. The mine has a project life of 18 years, during which 18 million tons of ore and waste rock would be generated. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, the draft EIS of March 2002 analyzed three alternatives: A) elimination of the canal portion of the water discharge facilities; B) backfilling of shafts; and C) relocation of the waste rock disposal facility and refractory ore stockpile. The preferred alternative incorporated portions of the proposed action and the three action alternatives. The abbreviated final EIS of July 2002 provided errata with respect to the draft EIS, public comments and responses, and associated documentation. This final supplemental EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. The mine would produce a substantial amount of gold, contributing to the nation's reserves of this precious metal. Water removed during dewatering of the mine would be put to beneficial use as irrigation water. The project would continue to provide direct and indirect employment opportunities and result in continue tax base contributions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities impact soil, rangeland vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, recreational resources, and grazing opportunities. Noxious weeds could invade the disturbed area. Habitat for federally protected goshawks, burrowing owls, sage grouse, and hawks could be affected by mining. Potential discharge of acidic water from waste rock disposal facilities could threaten soil and groundwater. Removal of groundwater via dewatering wells would increase the depth of aquifer drawdown already occurring due to mining elsewhere in the area and delay restoration of wetlands and riparian zones. Stream flow and related fish habitat recovery could also be delayed due to dewatering. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0140D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 02-0374F, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0355D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100238, 161 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-26 KW - Acids KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+LEEVILLE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION'S SOUTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT, ELK AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 2002). AN - 754907937; 14388 AB - PURPOSE: Continued operations and expansion of the Gold Quarry open pit mine and ore processing operations at Newmont Gold Corporation's South Operations Area in Elk and Eureka counties, Nevada were proposed in 1997. The Record of Decision for the South Operations Area Project Amendment (SOAPA) was signed July 26, 2002, and authorized Newmont to continue and expand gold mining operations. Newmont has been mining at this location since 1981. Since the Bureau of Land Management's authorization in 2002, much of the SOAPA project has been constructed and is being operated by Newmont. Project components include: deepening the Gold Quarry mine pit by approximately 350 feet; installing additional dewatering wells that discharge to Maggie Creek six miles above its confluence with the Humboldt River; expanding waste rock disposal facilities and leach facilities; and constructing associated ancillary facilities. Project components which have not been completed or have been partially completed include the James Creek waste rock disposal facility, and expansion of the property and non-property leach pad. This final supplement to the final EIS provides an expanded and updated analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with gold mining projects located in the Carlin Trend in response to a 2006 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SOAPA project is utilizing the existing work force to conduct mining on unpatented mining claims and fee land within Newmont's South Operations Area to produce gold from ore reserves contained in the ore deposit. Mining operations continue to employ local workers at the highest average salary of any industry in Nevada and provide tax revenues to the affected counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations continue to degrade riparian and wetland habitat and vegetation could be lost, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Runoff and drainage from waste rock storage facilities, leach pads, tailing impoundments, process ponds and other facilities could impact both surface and groundwater quality. Acid-rock drainage has occurred at refractory ore stockpiles at Newmont's South Operations Area. Groundwater cones-of-depression created by dewatering operations could create effects in regional groundwater drawdown, increasing potential for long-term impacts to aquatic organisms and associated habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral and Mining Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0358D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0263F, Volume 26, Number 3, respectively. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0354D, Volume 31, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100237, 239 pages and maps, June 22, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT+AMENDMENT%2C+ELK+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2002%29.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%27S+SOUTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT+AMENDMENT%2C+ELK+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+2002%29.&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 - 2010-08-31 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 816527021; 14384-100233_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Lands that could be made available for oil and natural gas leasing and development within the 897,400-acre Uinta National Forest of Wasatch County, Utah are identified. In order to analyze the possible environmental effects of a leasing decision, a projection of the development activity that could reasonably be anticipated was made using current and historical oil and gas development and exploration information, geologic interpretation, and projected market trends. This Reasonably Forseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) looks ahead over a period of 10 to 15 years. The rapid changes in the understanding of petroleum geology of the region along with the new exploration occurring in the Central Utah Overthrust Belt make it likely that advances in geologic understanding will render any RFDS obsolete within the 10- to 15-year period. For the purposes of the RFDS, the national forest was divided into nine analysis groups based on surface geology, past exploration activities, and geography. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to municipal water sources, wildlife habitat, streams eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers, visual resources, developed recreation sites, recreational residences, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and lands withdrawn for facilities associated with the Central Utah Project. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which replaces the draft EIS of 2008. Alternative 1 would continue the current lease management activities on 207,280 acres of the forest. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make 736,660 acres within the forest available for leasing. For all new leasable mineral operations, lease development stipulations would be applied according to the recreational opportunity spectrum class of the area as well as restrictions due to other specific resource area classifications. Alternative 3 would make leasing decisions, including identification of stipulations for forest lands, with respect to all lands in the forest other than those in IRAs. Approximately 521,350 acres of land would be unavailable for leasing, leaving 224,590 open to lease development. More restrictive lease stipulations would apply to leasable lands than those prescribed under Alternative 2. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would prescribe a no surface occupancy requirement to well pads and facilities and a special stipulation to preclude road construction in IRAs. The result would be that IRA acreage could be leased, but only accessed by directional drilling. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would foster development of oil and gas production and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help satisfy of industrial, security, and environmental needs. The Uinta National Forest would contribute to the supply of oil and gas while continuing to sustain the forest's productivity for other uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities, including well pads and access roads, would disturb 146.7 acres under the proposed action. Wells would be placed in IRAs under the proposed action, but no long-term impacts are expected as the disturbed areas would undergo full reclamation. Minimal impacts to wetlands, wet meadows, floodplains, riparian areas, and other watershed resources would occur regardless of the alternative selected. Cultural resources could be disturbed, but an inventory would help lessees avoid damage to sites of national significance. Recreational uses would be displaced from affected lands during lease tract developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0133D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100233, 914 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Provo, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 816527017; 14384-100233_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Lands that could be made available for oil and natural gas leasing and development within the 897,400-acre Uinta National Forest of Wasatch County, Utah are identified. In order to analyze the possible environmental effects of a leasing decision, a projection of the development activity that could reasonably be anticipated was made using current and historical oil and gas development and exploration information, geologic interpretation, and projected market trends. This Reasonably Forseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) looks ahead over a period of 10 to 15 years. The rapid changes in the understanding of petroleum geology of the region along with the new exploration occurring in the Central Utah Overthrust Belt make it likely that advances in geologic understanding will render any RFDS obsolete within the 10- to 15-year period. For the purposes of the RFDS, the national forest was divided into nine analysis groups based on surface geology, past exploration activities, and geography. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to municipal water sources, wildlife habitat, streams eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers, visual resources, developed recreation sites, recreational residences, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and lands withdrawn for facilities associated with the Central Utah Project. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which replaces the draft EIS of 2008. Alternative 1 would continue the current lease management activities on 207,280 acres of the forest. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make 736,660 acres within the forest available for leasing. For all new leasable mineral operations, lease development stipulations would be applied according to the recreational opportunity spectrum class of the area as well as restrictions due to other specific resource area classifications. Alternative 3 would make leasing decisions, including identification of stipulations for forest lands, with respect to all lands in the forest other than those in IRAs. Approximately 521,350 acres of land would be unavailable for leasing, leaving 224,590 open to lease development. More restrictive lease stipulations would apply to leasable lands than those prescribed under Alternative 2. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would prescribe a no surface occupancy requirement to well pads and facilities and a special stipulation to preclude road construction in IRAs. The result would be that IRA acreage could be leased, but only accessed by directional drilling. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would foster development of oil and gas production and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help satisfy of industrial, security, and environmental needs. The Uinta National Forest would contribute to the supply of oil and gas while continuing to sustain the forest's productivity for other uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities, including well pads and access roads, would disturb 146.7 acres under the proposed action. Wells would be placed in IRAs under the proposed action, but no long-term impacts are expected as the disturbed areas would undergo full reclamation. Minimal impacts to wetlands, wet meadows, floodplains, riparian areas, and other watershed resources would occur regardless of the alternative selected. Cultural resources could be disturbed, but an inventory would help lessees avoid damage to sites of national significance. Recreational uses would be displaced from affected lands during lease tract developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0133D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100233, 914 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Provo, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 816526951; 14384-100233_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Lands that could be made available for oil and natural gas leasing and development within the 897,400-acre Uinta National Forest of Wasatch County, Utah are identified. In order to analyze the possible environmental effects of a leasing decision, a projection of the development activity that could reasonably be anticipated was made using current and historical oil and gas development and exploration information, geologic interpretation, and projected market trends. This Reasonably Forseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) looks ahead over a period of 10 to 15 years. The rapid changes in the understanding of petroleum geology of the region along with the new exploration occurring in the Central Utah Overthrust Belt make it likely that advances in geologic understanding will render any RFDS obsolete within the 10- to 15-year period. For the purposes of the RFDS, the national forest was divided into nine analysis groups based on surface geology, past exploration activities, and geography. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to municipal water sources, wildlife habitat, streams eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers, visual resources, developed recreation sites, recreational residences, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and lands withdrawn for facilities associated with the Central Utah Project. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which replaces the draft EIS of 2008. Alternative 1 would continue the current lease management activities on 207,280 acres of the forest. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make 736,660 acres within the forest available for leasing. For all new leasable mineral operations, lease development stipulations would be applied according to the recreational opportunity spectrum class of the area as well as restrictions due to other specific resource area classifications. Alternative 3 would make leasing decisions, including identification of stipulations for forest lands, with respect to all lands in the forest other than those in IRAs. Approximately 521,350 acres of land would be unavailable for leasing, leaving 224,590 open to lease development. More restrictive lease stipulations would apply to leasable lands than those prescribed under Alternative 2. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would prescribe a no surface occupancy requirement to well pads and facilities and a special stipulation to preclude road construction in IRAs. The result would be that IRA acreage could be leased, but only accessed by directional drilling. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would foster development of oil and gas production and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help satisfy of industrial, security, and environmental needs. The Uinta National Forest would contribute to the supply of oil and gas while continuing to sustain the forest's productivity for other uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities, including well pads and access roads, would disturb 146.7 acres under the proposed action. Wells would be placed in IRAs under the proposed action, but no long-term impacts are expected as the disturbed areas would undergo full reclamation. Minimal impacts to wetlands, wet meadows, floodplains, riparian areas, and other watershed resources would occur regardless of the alternative selected. Cultural resources could be disturbed, but an inventory would help lessees avoid damage to sites of national significance. Recreational uses would be displaced from affected lands during lease tract developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0133D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100233, 914 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Provo, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UINTA NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, JUAB, SANPETE, TOOELE, UTAH, AND WASATCH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 754907760; 14384 AB - PURPOSE: Lands that could be made available for oil and natural gas leasing and development within the 897,400-acre Uinta National Forest of Wasatch County, Utah are identified. In order to analyze the possible environmental effects of a leasing decision, a projection of the development activity that could reasonably be anticipated was made using current and historical oil and gas development and exploration information, geologic interpretation, and projected market trends. This Reasonably Forseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) looks ahead over a period of 10 to 15 years. The rapid changes in the understanding of petroleum geology of the region along with the new exploration occurring in the Central Utah Overthrust Belt make it likely that advances in geologic understanding will render any RFDS obsolete within the 10- to 15-year period. For the purposes of the RFDS, the national forest was divided into nine analysis groups based on surface geology, past exploration activities, and geography. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to municipal water sources, wildlife habitat, streams eligible for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers, visual resources, developed recreation sites, recreational residences, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), and lands withdrawn for facilities associated with the Central Utah Project. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which replaces the draft EIS of 2008. Alternative 1 would continue the current lease management activities on 207,280 acres of the forest. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make 736,660 acres within the forest available for leasing. For all new leasable mineral operations, lease development stipulations would be applied according to the recreational opportunity spectrum class of the area as well as restrictions due to other specific resource area classifications. Alternative 3 would make leasing decisions, including identification of stipulations for forest lands, with respect to all lands in the forest other than those in IRAs. Approximately 521,350 acres of land would be unavailable for leasing, leaving 224,590 open to lease development. More restrictive lease stipulations would apply to leasable lands than those prescribed under Alternative 2. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would prescribe a no surface occupancy requirement to well pads and facilities and a special stipulation to preclude road construction in IRAs. The result would be that IRA acreage could be leased, but only accessed by directional drilling. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would foster development of oil and gas production and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help satisfy of industrial, security, and environmental needs. The Uinta National Forest would contribute to the supply of oil and gas while continuing to sustain the forest's productivity for other uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities, including well pads and access roads, would disturb 146.7 acres under the proposed action. Wells would be placed in IRAs under the proposed action, but no long-term impacts are expected as the disturbed areas would undergo full reclamation. Minimal impacts to wetlands, wet meadows, floodplains, riparian areas, and other watershed resources would occur regardless of the alternative selected. Cultural resources could be disturbed, but an inventory would help lessees avoid damage to sites of national significance. Recreational uses would be displaced from affected lands during lease tract developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0133D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100233, 914 pages, June 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Cultural Resources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UINTA+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+JUAB%2C+SANPETE%2C+TOOELE%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WASATCH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Provo, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816527009; 14376-100225_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816526929; 14376-100225_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816526926; 14376-100225_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816526903; 14376-100225_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816526896; 14376-100225_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816526891; 14376-100225_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 816526847; 14376-100225_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINNEMUCCA DISTRICT OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUMBOLDT, PERSHING, WASHOE, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 754907361; 14376 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the 8.4 million acres of federally-owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Winnemucca District Office in northwestern Nevada are proposed. The Winnemucca District Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) would replace the existing Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio management framework plans which were adopted in 1982 and amended in 1999. The planning area for the RMP includesNBall of Humboldt County and parts of Churchill, Lyon, Pershing, and Washoe counties.NBIntermingled with BLM lands in this area are tracts of privately owned land as well as tribal lands and landsNBowned by the State of Nevada and other federal agencies. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would emphasize an intermediate level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services by using an array of proactive and prescriptive measures that would protect vegetation and habitat and would promote the continuation of multiple resource management. Vegetation and special status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to provide for the continued presence of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on public lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem health. Management strategies would continue to provide for recreational opportunities and access to and on public lands. Specific actions would: designate three new Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and expand the area for the Pine Forest SRMA; allow the public to travel cross-country with motorized vehicles on four percent of BLM-administered lands; limit motorized vehicle use to designated routes on 95 percent of BLM-administered lands; prohibit motorized vehicle travel by the public yearlong on one percent of BLM-administered lands; allocate 9,932 acres to allow fire for resource benefit; restore vegetation in areas of altered condition class to improved fire regime condition and improve condition class from Class 3 to Class 2 by 70,000 acres; create or expand four areas of critical environmental concern totaling 97,820 acres; and identify 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered lands as available for disposal. Alternative B would emphasize livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, and recreation with the fewest protected areas and restrictions to development and use. Resource development would be more constrained under Alternative C, Option 1, than under Alternatives B or D. Production of products would generally be secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats. Management strategies under Alternative C, Option 2, would be the same as under Alternative C, Option 1, but livestock grazing would be eliminated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would address new and emerging resource issues such as landscape health, recreation, access and transportation, visual resource management, lands with wilderness characteristics and sage-grouse habitat. The plan would also address public land management consideration resulting from new laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Designation of new backcountry byways under the preferred alternative could encourage more visitors resulting in increased vehicle traffic and fugitive dust and vehicle engine emissions. Use of prescribed fire and herbicides to control noxious and invasive weeds would produce air pollutant emissions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100225, Volume 1: Executive Summary--34 pages, Volume 2--479 pages, Volume 3--384 pages, Volume 4--420 pages, Volume 5: Appendices--353 pages, June 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-21 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WINNEMUCCA+DISTRICT+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUMBOLDT%2C+PERSHING%2C+WASHOE%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-12 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 756827371; 14363-100221_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the Lincoln Home National Historic Site, Springfield, Illinois is proposed. The site, located in Sangamon County in west-central Illinois, protects and interprets the home where Abraham Lincoln lived with his family from 1844 to 1861 and is also the burial site for Mr. Lincoln. Lincoln Home National Historic Site was authorized by an act of Congress, Public Law 92-128, on August 18, 1971. The fundamental resources include: the Lincoln Home and lot; the view of the neighborhood from the Lincoln Home, including the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson Streets and the surrounding lots, homes, and outbuildings; the historic landscape of the Lincoln neighborhood; and views of the Lincoln Home from the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson as well as from his neighbors' lots. The national historic sites current master plan was completed more than 35 years ago and has reached the limit of its effective life span. The ongoing evolution of the national historic site, along with its surrounding area and other outside factors, have resulted in new issues and challenges. This draft EIS examines four alternatives for managing the national historic site for the next 15 to 20 years. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would continue current management direction and trends as outlined in the 1970 Master Plan. Alternative 2, A Retreat From Modern Life in the Heart of the City, is the preferred alternative and would focus on rehabilitating the historic landscape to offer visitors a sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. Extensive rehabilitation would be carried out at the core of the site, but less extensive work would occur away from the core. The neighborhoods historic landscape would be rehabilitated to provide visitors with an understanding of and appreciation for the size, density, and diversity of this mid-19th century Springfield neighborhood. Rehabilitation would be most extensive at the intersection of Eighth Street and Jackson Street. Contemporary buildings would be constructed on the empty lots of three of the historic houses. The Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest degree possible. Alternative 3, Life and Work in a Rehabilitated Lincoln-era Urban Landscape, would focus on interpreting and rehabilitating the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it along the entire length of Eighth Street. Under Alternative 4, Self-discovery of the Lincoln-era Landscape, the national historic site management would focus on rehabilitating the landscape to provide visual cues of what was present during Lincolns time, offering visitors a sense of self-discovery. Total one-time costs and annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.2 million and $3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed GMP would confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of Lincoln Home National Historic Site. The plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national historic site and would provide a framework for managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect site resources, how to provide quality visitor uses and experiences, how to manage visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if any, to develop in or near the national historic site. Development of the plan would ensure that this foundation for decision making is based on consultation with interested and affected parties and adopted after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an approved plan would depend on future funding and could take many years. Implementation of the preferred alternative would have long-term, minor adverse impacts on archeological resources from new construction. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100221, 164 pages, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-32 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Lincoln Home National Historic Site KW - Illinois KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Springfield, Illinois; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 754907209; 14363 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the Lincoln Home National Historic Site, Springfield, Illinois is proposed. The site, located in Sangamon County in west-central Illinois, protects and interprets the home where Abraham Lincoln lived with his family from 1844 to 1861 and is also the burial site for Mr. Lincoln. Lincoln Home National Historic Site was authorized by an act of Congress, Public Law 92-128, on August 18, 1971. The fundamental resources include: the Lincoln Home and lot; the view of the neighborhood from the Lincoln Home, including the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson Streets and the surrounding lots, homes, and outbuildings; the historic landscape of the Lincoln neighborhood; and views of the Lincoln Home from the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson as well as from his neighbors' lots. The national historic sites current master plan was completed more than 35 years ago and has reached the limit of its effective life span. The ongoing evolution of the national historic site, along with its surrounding area and other outside factors, have resulted in new issues and challenges. This draft EIS examines four alternatives for managing the national historic site for the next 15 to 20 years. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would continue current management direction and trends as outlined in the 1970 Master Plan. Alternative 2, A Retreat From Modern Life in the Heart of the City, is the preferred alternative and would focus on rehabilitating the historic landscape to offer visitors a sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. Extensive rehabilitation would be carried out at the core of the site, but less extensive work would occur away from the core. The neighborhoods historic landscape would be rehabilitated to provide visitors with an understanding of and appreciation for the size, density, and diversity of this mid-19th century Springfield neighborhood. Rehabilitation would be most extensive at the intersection of Eighth Street and Jackson Street. Contemporary buildings would be constructed on the empty lots of three of the historic houses. The Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest degree possible. Alternative 3, Life and Work in a Rehabilitated Lincoln-era Urban Landscape, would focus on interpreting and rehabilitating the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it along the entire length of Eighth Street. Under Alternative 4, Self-discovery of the Lincoln-era Landscape, the national historic site management would focus on rehabilitating the landscape to provide visual cues of what was present during Lincolns time, offering visitors a sense of self-discovery. Total one-time costs and annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.2 million and $3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed GMP would confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of Lincoln Home National Historic Site. The plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national historic site and would provide a framework for managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect site resources, how to provide quality visitor uses and experiences, how to manage visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if any, to develop in or near the national historic site. Development of the plan would ensure that this foundation for decision making is based on consultation with interested and affected parties and adopted after an adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an approved plan would depend on future funding and could take many years. Implementation of the preferred alternative would have long-term, minor adverse impacts on archeological resources from new construction. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100221, 164 pages, June 11, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-32 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Lincoln Home National Historic Site KW - Illinois KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Springfield, Illinois; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH SAN PABLO BAY RESTORATION AND REUSE PROJECT (NORTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM), MARIN, SONOMA, AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NORTH SAN PABLO BAY RESTORATION AND REUSE PROJECT (NORTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM), MARIN, SONOMA, AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131378; 14360-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of federal funds for implementation of the North San Pablo Bay Restoration and Reuse Project, also referred to as the North Bay Water Recycling Program (NBWRP), within Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties, California is proposed. The member agencies of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), including Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (SD), Novato SD, Sonoma Valley County SD, Napa SD, and Sonoma County Water District, undertook planning efforts over a five-year period to define shared objectives and develop alternatives toward definition of a region-wide water reclamation and reuse project. The action area encompasses 318 square miles, extends 10 to 15 miles inland of San Pablo Bay, and has a total population of over 270,000. The region supports agriculture, as well as light industry, commercial uses, parklands, and residential areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the proposed end uses of recycled water, beneficial offset, integration of conservation measures, regional distribution of recycled water, cost and benefit, water quality, effects on agriculture uses, and growth inducement. A No Project Alternative, a No Action Alternative, and three action alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. The action alternatives represent a range of recycled water reuse and regional facility integration and include: Alternative 1 (Basic System) which would include use of recycled water near each of the individual wastewater treatment plants (WWTP); Alternative 2 (Partially Connected System) which would add pipelines, pump stations and storage to partially connect the existing WWTPs; and Alternative 3 (Fully Connected System) which would provide a fully integrated and regional recycled water distribution system connecting all four member agency WWTPs. Under each alternative, treatment and storage capacity would be constructed within or along public roadways within Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties. NRWRA member agencies have collectively prioritized projects within their individual service areas to establish a Phase 1 implementation plan under Alternative 1 identifying the order in which projects would be constructed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The NBWRP would offset urban and agricultural demands on potable water supplies, enhance local and regional ecosystems, improve local and regional water supply reliability, maintain and protect public health and safety, promote sustainable practices, prioritize local needs for recycled water, and implement recycled water facilities in an economically viable manner. NBWRP would provide an alternative irrigation supply to existing groundwater pumping and the offset could maintain or raise groundwater levels in portions of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could generate erosion-related water quality impacts and impacts to wetlands and riparian habitats. The proposed facilities would be subject to disruption by seismic activity. Unstable and expansive soils could cause damage to structures and service disruptions. New impervious surfaces for NBWRP would result in an increase in storm runoff. Irrigation with recycled water could contribute to loading of specific constituents to groundwater. LEGAL MANDATES: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 and Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0329D-, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100218, 479 pages, June 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES-10-24 KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Recycling KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Conservation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - California KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Public Law 102-575, Compliance KW - Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SAN+PABLO+BAY+RESTORATION+AND+REUSE+PROJECT+%28NORTH+BAY+WATER+RECYCLING+PROGRAM%29%2C+MARIN%2C+SONOMA%2C+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+SAN+PABLO+BAY+RESTORATION+AND+REUSE+PROJECT+%28NORTH+BAY+WATER+RECYCLING+PROGRAM%29%2C+MARIN%2C+SONOMA%2C+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-21 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873131161; 14373-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873130878; 14371-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Management options for public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLMs) Taos field office, consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos Resource Management Plan (RMP). The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses (i.e., rights-of-way), mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would replace the 1998 Taos RMP and subsequent amendments to reflect current policies and apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,175 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100212, Draft EIS--524 pages, Appendices--230 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-29 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873130222; 14373-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873130214; 14373-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873130202; 14373-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129797; 14373-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129787; 14373-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129775; 14373-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129758; 14373-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129739; 14373-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129687; 14373-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129676; 14373-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129651; 14373-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129179; 14373-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129165; 14373-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 873129154; 14373-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873127220; 14371-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Management options for public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLMs) Taos field office, consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos Resource Management Plan (RMP). The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses (i.e., rights-of-way), mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would replace the 1998 Taos RMP and subsequent amendments to reflect current policies and apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,175 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100212, Draft EIS--524 pages, Appendices--230 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-29 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PROVO WESTSIDE CONNECTOR, PROVO, UTAH. AN - 754908420; 14373 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements between U.S. Interstate 15 (I-15) and Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah are proposed. The project area is located in southwest Provo which includes the neighborhoods of Provo Bay, Sunset, and Lakewood. The Provo Airport and other commercial properties in the project area, which is bordered on the south and west by Utah Lake and on the east by I-15, are currently accessed by passing through residential neighborhoods along Center Street and 3110 West Street. As the planned conversion from agricultural land uses to commercial land uses continues, and as residential areas expand, commercial vehicle use of residential roads will increase and exacerbate safety concerns. The proposed improvements would include construction of a new, five-lane, arterial roadway known as the Provo Westside Connector (PWC), the extension of existing residential collector streets 500 West and 1150 West to intersect with the proposed arterial, a 10-foot paved bicycle and pedestrian trail, and parking pull-outs to access the trail. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives include the 1860 South Alternative and two versions of the I-15 Overpass/Underpass Alternative, the University Avenue A Alternative and the University Avenue B Alternative. Both University Avenue alternatives would include a provision for public balloting regarding construction of a noise wall along the southern border of the Lakeview neighborhood. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed new roadway would provide a connection to the existing transportation network to support planned development in southwest Provo and would support planned improvements at the Provo Airport and related commercial and industrial development in the vicinity of the airport. The direct roadway link between the residential areas west of I-15 and the commercial center of Provo east of I-15, including the Provo Towne Centre Mall, would support the continued economic viability of the commercial center of Provo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way would require acquisition and pavement of 108.5 to 121.6 acres and commercial property take of 11,000 to 24,000 square feet. Project implementation would impact 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetlands, 65.3 to 77.1 acres of floodplains, 85.9 to 93.7 acres of mixed-use agriculture habitat, 13.1 to 15.3 acres of residential wildlife habitat, and 5.2 to 9.3 acres of wetland habitat. Under the University Avenue alternatives, 23 residences would experience significant noise increases and the Lakewood neighborhood would experience significant and permanent impacts to visual quality. The proposed project would affect a relatively small portion of a historic canal and irrigation system. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100214, 530 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-10-01-D KW - Highways KW - Airports KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Use KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=PROVO+WESTSIDE+CONNECTOR%2C+PROVO%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 15236403; 14371 AB - PURPOSE: Management options for public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands, administered by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLMs) Taos field office, consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos Resource Management Plan (RMP). The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses (i.e., rights-of-way), mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would replace the 1998 Taos RMP and subsequent amendments to reflect current policies and apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,175 acres. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100212, Draft EIS--524 pages, Appendices--230 pages and maps, June 3, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-29 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15236403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-04 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132095; 14346-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132092; 14346-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132089; 14346-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130659; 14346-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130540; 14346-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130532; 14346-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130524; 14346-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130516; 14346-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130506; 14346-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127915; 14346-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127912; 14346-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127908; 14346-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127905; 14346-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127903; 14346-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127897; 14346-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127895; 14346-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127891; 14346-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127883; 14346-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127686; 14346-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 20] T2 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127169; 14346-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127169?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRUCELLOSIS REMOTE VACCINATION PROGRAM FOR BISON IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BRUCELLOSIS REMOTE VACCINATION PROGRAM FOR BISON IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 756827450; 14335-100184_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The remote delivery of vaccine for the contagious disease brucellosis to free-ranging bison in Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. The analysis area encompasses 220,000 acres in the central and northern portions of the park that were historically occupied by bison. The Yellowstone bison population has substantially increased since the initiation of restoration efforts in 1902 and numbered more than 5,000 in 2005. To reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle more than 900 bison were consigned to slaughter during winter 2005-06, and more than 1,400 were consigned to slaughter during winter 2007-08. Brucellosis is caused by the non-native bacteria Brucella abortus that may induce abortions or the birth of non-viable calves in livestock and wildlife. Remote delivery is distinguished from hand (syringe) delivery that currently occurs in capture pens near the park boundary because it would not involve capture and handling of bison. The proposed action is directed by a 2000 Record of Decision for the Interagency Bison Management Plan regarding the release of bison outside the park that are untested for exposure to brucellosis. The remote delivery vaccination is intended to protect Yellowstone bison by reducing brucellosis infection and, as a result, further reduce the risk of transmission to cattle outside the park. Three alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative would continue the current hand vaccination program that is intermittently implemented at the Stephens Creek capture facility during capture operations. The second alternative would include a combination of the capture program at Stephens Creek and a remote delivery vaccination strategy that would focus exclusively on young, non-pregnant bison. The most logical strategy for remote delivery of vaccine at this time is using a compressed air-powered rifle that delivers an absorbable bullet with a vaccine payload that is freeze dried or photo-polymerized. Remote delivery vaccination could occur from mid-September through November and March through May in areas where bison are distributed in the park. A third alternative includes all components of the second alternative, as well as the remote vaccination of adult females. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Remote delivery vaccination would deliver a low risk, effective vaccine to eligible bison inside the park to decrease the probability of bison shedding Brucella abortus, lower the brucellosis infection rate, and increase tolerance for bison on essential winter ranges in Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The effectiveness of Strain RB51 vaccine against field strain Brucella abortus is not conclusive and mixed results have been reported by various research projects. The duration of immunity provided by remote vaccination remains uncertain. The proposed action could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally-listed Canada lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100184, 218 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-27 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Range Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Management KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRUCELLOSIS+REMOTE+VACCINATION+PROGRAM+FOR+BISON+IN+YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BRUCELLOSIS+REMOTE+VACCINATION+PROGRAM+FOR+BISON+IN+YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. AN - 756827314; 14347-100196_0003 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 draft 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: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-008). JF - EPA number: 100196, 722 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-28 KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements 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 - 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/756827314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. AN - 756827305; 14347-100196_0002 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 draft 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: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-008). JF - EPA number: 100196, 722 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-28 KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements 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 - 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/756827305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. AN - 756827295; 14347-100196_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 draft 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: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-008). JF - EPA number: 100196, 722 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-28 KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements 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 - 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/756827295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. AN - 756827203; 14347-100196_0004 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 draft 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: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-008). JF - EPA number: 100196, 722 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-28 KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements 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 - 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/756827203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909767; 14346 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Cachuma Lake Recreation Area is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 9,250 acre area, which focuses on the 3,043-acre lake. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the county. Most of the recreational facilities associated with the lake are located in a 375-acre county park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, a general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, an amphitheater, a trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, a nature center, a county park ranger station, a family center, swimming pools, and a snack shop. On the north side of the lake, open space provides leased grazing areas and permitted equestrian use. The open space is closed to the general public. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for swimmers. The RMP would have a planning horizon of 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the County Parks Department. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users and between recreationists and wildlife could become seriously problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100195, 576 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-22 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cachuma Lake Recreation Area KW - California KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CACHUMA+LAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIAN CREEK MINE EXPANSION, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 754908374; 14339 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of limestone and dolomite mining operations at the Indian Creek Mine, located four miles west of Townsend, Montana, is proposed. Graymont Western US, Inc. proposes to extend mine operations 2.5 miles southward of the existing permit boundary into the South Claims Area and eastward into the Dolomite Claims Area adjoining the northeast corner of the existing mine permit boundary. The proposed amendment would involve 1,940 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and would extend the mine life from 15 years to 50 years resulting in continuation of Graymont's existing operations in the Limestone Hills, including the development of mine pits, mine facilities, ore storage sites, soil salvage stockpiles, haul roads, and overburden disposal areas. A disturbance boundary encompassing 1,313 acres, including 968 acres in the South Claims Area and 345 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area, would be established and activities would continue in the same manner as current operations. Limestone and dolomite would be removed in layers, or "benches", approximately 20 feet thick. As mining progresses downward on the deposit, safety rock catch benches would be created to a minimum width of 20 feet at vertical intervals ranging from 20 to 60 feet. Ramp roads within the quarry would connect successive benches to provide truck and loader access. Overburden would be placed in disposal areas along the west boundary of the mine or used as backfill in depleted mine areas; up to 50 percent of the overburden would be replaced into the mine void as backfill. Final grading would re-establish contoured slopes. Reject rock resulting from ore crushing would be placed along the west side of the mine. Limestone ore would be transported to a new crusher site north of the reject rock disposal area. Crushed limestone would be transported via haul trucks to the existing crusher site and conveyed to the kilns located north of Indian Creek at the plant facility. Kiln dust and other emissions would be controlled via baghouse facilities. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the Modified Pit Backfill Alternative; the latter, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to the applicant's proposal, except Graymont would be required to take additional measures with respect to reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the mine would increase its life by 35 years, providing products in high demand by the construction industry and employing local workers into the distant future. Reclamation stipulations under the preferred alternative would ensure the mining caused the least damage possible to the environment and maintained, as much as possible, area landscape contours. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine pit expansion would affect 343 acres in the South Claims Area and 214 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area. Mine-related activities would result in the loss of 451 acres of mountain mahogany habitat, which would represent 18 percent of such habitat in the Limestone Hills, though 680 acres of mahogany would be planted at a density of 20 seedlings per acre. Sagebrush and other native shrubs and trees would be removed during mining, reducing available habitat, including habitat for mule deer, Brewer's sparrow, and bighorn sheep. Up to 19 of 23 sword townsendia plants in the Dolomite Claims Area would be removed during mining, but would not likely affect species viability in the area. Overburden disposed outside the mine pits would affect 65 acres in the South Claims Area and 35 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area. The limestone kiln facility would consume 40,000 tons of coal and 30,000 tons of coke annually, resulting in significant air pollutant emissions. Most of the South Claims Area lies within a designated surface danger zone that may contain unexploded U.S. Army ordnance. The geological structure of the site and fossils therein would be irretrievably lost. Visual aesthetics and other recreational values of the affected area would be severely degraded during operations and somewhat affected even following reclamation. Fifteen Native American archaeological sites and one historic site would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0043D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100188, 210 pages and maps, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Lime KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Vegetation KW - Butte Resource Management Area KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIAN+CREEK+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=INDIAN+CREEK+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. AN - 754907677; 14347 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 draft 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: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-008). JF - EPA number: 100196, 722 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-28 KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements 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 - 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/754907677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&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 - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BRUCELLOSIS REMOTE VACCINATION PROGRAM FOR BISON IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 754907593; 14335 AB - PURPOSE: The remote delivery of vaccine for the contagious disease brucellosis to free-ranging bison in Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. The analysis area encompasses 220,000 acres in the central and northern portions of the park that were historically occupied by bison. The Yellowstone bison population has substantially increased since the initiation of restoration efforts in 1902 and numbered more than 5,000 in 2005. To reduce the risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle more than 900 bison were consigned to slaughter during winter 2005-06, and more than 1,400 were consigned to slaughter during winter 2007-08. Brucellosis is caused by the non-native bacteria Brucella abortus that may induce abortions or the birth of non-viable calves in livestock and wildlife. Remote delivery is distinguished from hand (syringe) delivery that currently occurs in capture pens near the park boundary because it would not involve capture and handling of bison. The proposed action is directed by a 2000 Record of Decision for the Interagency Bison Management Plan regarding the release of bison outside the park that are untested for exposure to brucellosis. The remote delivery vaccination is intended to protect Yellowstone bison by reducing brucellosis infection and, as a result, further reduce the risk of transmission to cattle outside the park. Three alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The No Action Alternative would continue the current hand vaccination program that is intermittently implemented at the Stephens Creek capture facility during capture operations. The second alternative would include a combination of the capture program at Stephens Creek and a remote delivery vaccination strategy that would focus exclusively on young, non-pregnant bison. The most logical strategy for remote delivery of vaccine at this time is using a compressed air-powered rifle that delivers an absorbable bullet with a vaccine payload that is freeze dried or photo-polymerized. Remote delivery vaccination could occur from mid-September through November and March through May in areas where bison are distributed in the park. A third alternative includes all components of the second alternative, as well as the remote vaccination of adult females. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Remote delivery vaccination would deliver a low risk, effective vaccine to eligible bison inside the park to decrease the probability of bison shedding Brucella abortus, lower the brucellosis infection rate, and increase tolerance for bison on essential winter ranges in Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The effectiveness of Strain RB51 vaccine against field strain Brucella abortus is not conclusive and mixed results have been reported by various research projects. The duration of immunity provided by remote vaccination remains uncertain. The proposed action could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally-listed Canada lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100184, 218 pages, May 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-27 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Range Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Management KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BRUCELLOSIS+REMOTE+VACCINATION+PROGRAM+FOR+BISON+IN+YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BRUCELLOSIS+REMOTE+VACCINATION+PROGRAM+FOR+BISON+IN+YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128499; 14320-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. Alternative 4, which would use cellular open excavation and overlay for excavation and replacement of the MIAD foundation is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 09-0476D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the draft and final EIS, see 07-0156D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100169, 227 pages and maps, May 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756827255; 14317-100166_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the actions to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. This final EIS tiers from the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS and groups alternatives for the proposed actions into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex (FBTC) that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has identified Stationing and Training Alternative 4, Land Use Change Alternative 5, and Training Infrastructure Improvement Alternative 4 as the preferred alternatives in this final EIS. These alternatives would: 1) add a second Stryker Brigade Combat Team to the number of units stationed at Fort Bliss; 2) remove grassland limited use area restrictions in the Southeast McGregor Range and in the Sacramento Mountains of the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 3) allow live-fire military uses and off-road vehicle maneuver in the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 4) construct additional ranges in a phased approach, with the first phase including 27 ranges constructed in the 2010 to 2016 period; 5) expand existing range camps and construct contingency operating locations in the FBTC; and 6) construct a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the FBTC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Off-road vehicle maneuvers could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0354D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the final Programmatic EIS on Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment, see 07-0417F, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100166, 720 pages, April 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756827192; 14317-100166_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the actions to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. This final EIS tiers from the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS and groups alternatives for the proposed actions into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex (FBTC) that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has identified Stationing and Training Alternative 4, Land Use Change Alternative 5, and Training Infrastructure Improvement Alternative 4 as the preferred alternatives in this final EIS. These alternatives would: 1) add a second Stryker Brigade Combat Team to the number of units stationed at Fort Bliss; 2) remove grassland limited use area restrictions in the Southeast McGregor Range and in the Sacramento Mountains of the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 3) allow live-fire military uses and off-road vehicle maneuver in the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 4) construct additional ranges in a phased approach, with the first phase including 27 ranges constructed in the 2010 to 2016 period; 5) expand existing range camps and construct contingency operating locations in the FBTC; and 6) construct a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the FBTC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Off-road vehicle maneuvers could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0354D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the final Programmatic EIS on Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment, see 07-0417F, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100166, 720 pages, April 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756827135; 14317-100166_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the actions to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. This final EIS tiers from the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS and groups alternatives for the proposed actions into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex (FBTC) that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has identified Stationing and Training Alternative 4, Land Use Change Alternative 5, and Training Infrastructure Improvement Alternative 4 as the preferred alternatives in this final EIS. These alternatives would: 1) add a second Stryker Brigade Combat Team to the number of units stationed at Fort Bliss; 2) remove grassland limited use area restrictions in the Southeast McGregor Range and in the Sacramento Mountains of the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 3) allow live-fire military uses and off-road vehicle maneuver in the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 4) construct additional ranges in a phased approach, with the first phase including 27 ranges constructed in the 2010 to 2016 period; 5) expand existing range camps and construct contingency operating locations in the FBTC; and 6) construct a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the FBTC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Off-road vehicle maneuvers could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0354D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the final Programmatic EIS on Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment, see 07-0417F, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100166, 720 pages, April 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756827128; 14317-100166_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the actions to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. This final EIS tiers from the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS and groups alternatives for the proposed actions into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex (FBTC) that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has identified Stationing and Training Alternative 4, Land Use Change Alternative 5, and Training Infrastructure Improvement Alternative 4 as the preferred alternatives in this final EIS. These alternatives would: 1) add a second Stryker Brigade Combat Team to the number of units stationed at Fort Bliss; 2) remove grassland limited use area restrictions in the Southeast McGregor Range and in the Sacramento Mountains of the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 3) allow live-fire military uses and off-road vehicle maneuver in the Northeast McGregor Range North of Highway 506; 4) construct additional ranges in a phased approach, with the first phase including 27 ranges constructed in the 2010 to 2016 period; 5) expand existing range camps and construct contingency operating locations in the FBTC; and 6) construct a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the FBTC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Off-road vehicle maneuvers could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0354D, Volume 33, Number 4. For the abstract of the final Programmatic EIS on Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment, see 07-0417F, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100166, 720 pages, April 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 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 6] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827424; 14315-100164_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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 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 6] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827386; 14315-100164_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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 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 6] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827275; 14315-100164_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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 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 6] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827267; 14315-100164_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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 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 6] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827189; 14315-100164_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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 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 6] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827148; 14315-100164_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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 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. AN - 15224630; 14315 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) is proposing to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawats (MW) of 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 220/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 220-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation, near 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. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this draft 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: Approximately 51 acres of land would permanently be disturbed. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds from project construction would exceed daily significant thresholds and contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts on existing 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 11423, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100164, Draft EIS--823 pages and maps, Appendices--427 pages, April 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-16 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 11423, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15224630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-29&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 - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. AN - 873130167; 14312-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the Pocatello Resource Management Area of southeastern Idaho is proposed. The management area encompasses 5.1 million acres of land, of which 613,800 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.1 million acres by the Forest Service, 35,900 acres by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 519,800 acres by the Fort Hall Indians, 324,4000 acres by the state of Idaho, and 2.4 million acres by private owners. The area also includes 99,500 acres of water bodies. The Pocatello general management plan has not been revised since 1988, after which the area has been affected by news laws, regulations, and policies; altered conditions on public lands; and new and emerging demands on public lands. Revision of the existing management plan is particularly necessary with respect to vegetation management, special status species, fire management, recreational resource uses, retention and disposal of public land and identification of lands with potential for alternative energy developments, mineral exploitation, and special area designations. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and related user conflict, containment of hazardous substances and other contaminants from mining and reclamation activities, acquisition and maintenance of access to public lands, provisions for an appropriate balance between recreational use and other resource use and management, management of the sagebrush ecosystem, and provisions for an appropriate balance between socioeconomic benefits and commodity and amenity use benefits. The alternative management schemes under consideration also address the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the suitability of river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. Key components of Alternative B would include provisions to address: special status species and vegetation, particularly the sagebrush ecosystem; adjustment of land tenure arrangements to improve administrative efficiency and protect resources, while supporting appropriate development and improving public access; management of mineral and energy resources; restriction of OHV opportunities and use; and implementation of prescribed fire treatments to provide for a broad range of vegetation types and to move the area toward a natural fire regime condition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action would focus on a balanced combination of resource protection and use that would provide benefits for the broadest range of public uses. Constraints would be implemented that were less restrictive than under Alternative C, but more restrictive than under Alternative D. Likewise, Alternative B would accommodate a higher level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through use of public lands than Alternative C, but a lower level than Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The restoration and enhancement of resource values and special status species habitat under the preferred alternative would be the least effective of all the action alternatives. Mineral extraction and other activities resulting from establishment of the plan would result in disturbance to watershed soils and vegetation, consumption of water, reduction of air quality, emissions of noise, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, continued conflicts between mineral developers and grazing allotment holders, degradation of visual quality, damage to cultural and paleontological resources, and reduction of dispersed and other recreational opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0058D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100161, Volume I--535 pages, Volume II--503 pages, Volume III--432 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-06/010+1610 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Pocatello Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.title=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. AN - 873128524; 14312-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the Pocatello Resource Management Area of southeastern Idaho is proposed. The management area encompasses 5.1 million acres of land, of which 613,800 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.1 million acres by the Forest Service, 35,900 acres by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 519,800 acres by the Fort Hall Indians, 324,4000 acres by the state of Idaho, and 2.4 million acres by private owners. The area also includes 99,500 acres of water bodies. The Pocatello general management plan has not been revised since 1988, after which the area has been affected by news laws, regulations, and policies; altered conditions on public lands; and new and emerging demands on public lands. Revision of the existing management plan is particularly necessary with respect to vegetation management, special status species, fire management, recreational resource uses, retention and disposal of public land and identification of lands with potential for alternative energy developments, mineral exploitation, and special area designations. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and related user conflict, containment of hazardous substances and other contaminants from mining and reclamation activities, acquisition and maintenance of access to public lands, provisions for an appropriate balance between recreational use and other resource use and management, management of the sagebrush ecosystem, and provisions for an appropriate balance between socioeconomic benefits and commodity and amenity use benefits. The alternative management schemes under consideration also address the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the suitability of river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. Key components of Alternative B would include provisions to address: special status species and vegetation, particularly the sagebrush ecosystem; adjustment of land tenure arrangements to improve administrative efficiency and protect resources, while supporting appropriate development and improving public access; management of mineral and energy resources; restriction of OHV opportunities and use; and implementation of prescribed fire treatments to provide for a broad range of vegetation types and to move the area toward a natural fire regime condition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action would focus on a balanced combination of resource protection and use that would provide benefits for the broadest range of public uses. Constraints would be implemented that were less restrictive than under Alternative C, but more restrictive than under Alternative D. Likewise, Alternative B would accommodate a higher level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through use of public lands than Alternative C, but a lower level than Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The restoration and enhancement of resource values and special status species habitat under the preferred alternative would be the least effective of all the action alternatives. Mineral extraction and other activities resulting from establishment of the plan would result in disturbance to watershed soils and vegetation, consumption of water, reduction of air quality, emissions of noise, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, continued conflicts between mineral developers and grazing allotment holders, degradation of visual quality, damage to cultural and paleontological resources, and reduction of dispersed and other recreational opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0058D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100161, Volume I--535 pages, Volume II--503 pages, Volume III--432 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-06/010+1610 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Pocatello Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.title=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. AN - 873128500; 14312-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the Pocatello Resource Management Area of southeastern Idaho is proposed. The management area encompasses 5.1 million acres of land, of which 613,800 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.1 million acres by the Forest Service, 35,900 acres by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 519,800 acres by the Fort Hall Indians, 324,4000 acres by the state of Idaho, and 2.4 million acres by private owners. The area also includes 99,500 acres of water bodies. The Pocatello general management plan has not been revised since 1988, after which the area has been affected by news laws, regulations, and policies; altered conditions on public lands; and new and emerging demands on public lands. Revision of the existing management plan is particularly necessary with respect to vegetation management, special status species, fire management, recreational resource uses, retention and disposal of public land and identification of lands with potential for alternative energy developments, mineral exploitation, and special area designations. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and related user conflict, containment of hazardous substances and other contaminants from mining and reclamation activities, acquisition and maintenance of access to public lands, provisions for an appropriate balance between recreational use and other resource use and management, management of the sagebrush ecosystem, and provisions for an appropriate balance between socioeconomic benefits and commodity and amenity use benefits. The alternative management schemes under consideration also address the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the suitability of river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. Key components of Alternative B would include provisions to address: special status species and vegetation, particularly the sagebrush ecosystem; adjustment of land tenure arrangements to improve administrative efficiency and protect resources, while supporting appropriate development and improving public access; management of mineral and energy resources; restriction of OHV opportunities and use; and implementation of prescribed fire treatments to provide for a broad range of vegetation types and to move the area toward a natural fire regime condition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action would focus on a balanced combination of resource protection and use that would provide benefits for the broadest range of public uses. Constraints would be implemented that were less restrictive than under Alternative C, but more restrictive than under Alternative D. Likewise, Alternative B would accommodate a higher level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through use of public lands than Alternative C, but a lower level than Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The restoration and enhancement of resource values and special status species habitat under the preferred alternative would be the least effective of all the action alternatives. Mineral extraction and other activities resulting from establishment of the plan would result in disturbance to watershed soils and vegetation, consumption of water, reduction of air quality, emissions of noise, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, continued conflicts between mineral developers and grazing allotment holders, degradation of visual quality, damage to cultural and paleontological resources, and reduction of dispersed and other recreational opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0058D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100161, Volume I--535 pages, Volume II--503 pages, Volume III--432 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-06/010+1610 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Pocatello Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.title=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POCATELLO FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO. AN - 15227215; 14312 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general land and resources management plan for the Pocatello Resource Management Area of southeastern Idaho is proposed. The management area encompasses 5.1 million acres of land, of which 613,800 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 1.1 million acres by the Forest Service, 35,900 acres by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 519,800 acres by the Fort Hall Indians, 324,4000 acres by the state of Idaho, and 2.4 million acres by private owners. The area also includes 99,500 acres of water bodies. The Pocatello general management plan has not been revised since 1988, after which the area has been affected by news laws, regulations, and policies; altered conditions on public lands; and new and emerging demands on public lands. Revision of the existing management plan is particularly necessary with respect to vegetation management, special status species, fire management, recreational resource uses, retention and disposal of public land and identification of lands with potential for alternative energy developments, mineral exploitation, and special area designations. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and related user conflict, containment of hazardous substances and other contaminants from mining and reclamation activities, acquisition and maintenance of access to public lands, provisions for an appropriate balance between recreational use and other resource use and management, management of the sagebrush ecosystem, and provisions for an appropriate balance between socioeconomic benefits and commodity and amenity use benefits. The alternative management schemes under consideration also address the designation of an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the suitability of river segments for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four Alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. Key components of Alternative B would include provisions to address: special status species and vegetation, particularly the sagebrush ecosystem; adjustment of land tenure arrangements to improve administrative efficiency and protect resources, while supporting appropriate development and improving public access; management of mineral and energy resources; restriction of OHV opportunities and use; and implementation of prescribed fire treatments to provide for a broad range of vegetation types and to move the area toward a natural fire regime condition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action would focus on a balanced combination of resource protection and use that would provide benefits for the broadest range of public uses. Constraints would be implemented that were less restrictive than under Alternative C, but more restrictive than under Alternative D. Likewise, Alternative B would accommodate a higher level of production of food, fiber, minerals, and services through use of public lands than Alternative C, but a lower level than Alternative D. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The restoration and enhancement of resource values and special status species habitat under the preferred alternative would be the least effective of all the action alternatives. Mineral extraction and other activities resulting from establishment of the plan would result in disturbance to watershed soils and vegetation, consumption of water, reduction of air quality, emissions of noise, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, continued conflicts between mineral developers and grazing allotment holders, degradation of visual quality, damage to cultural and paleontological resources, and reduction of dispersed and other recreational opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0058D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100161, Volume I--535 pages, Volume II--503 pages, Volume III--432 pages and maps, April 28, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-06/010+1610 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Pocatello Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.title=POCATELLO+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-29 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLERTON LAKE GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - MILLERTON LAKE GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827300; 14304-100153_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Millerton Lake Resource Management Plan and General Management Plan is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the Millerton Lake State Recreation Area in Fresno and Madera counties, California. The area, which is administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BR), lies in the southern portion of California's Central Valley in the upper San Joaquin River Watershed. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative 1 would emphasize expanded recreation and would include the highest level of camping facilities (group and individual), additional boat ramps, and a new, expanded marina. The lake would be managed to provide for the highest possible boat densities and the fewest restrictions on boat type and speed. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would balance resource protection and recreation opportunities. The alternative would provide for upgrades and improvements for many of the park's existing facilities and utilities. This enhancement alternative would allow for fewer boats than Alternative 1, but more boats than Alternative 3. Boat speed limits would be reduced from Fine Gold Creek upstream in to Smith Basin and would be further reduced above Smith Basin. Boat size would be restricted to 35 feet. The development of new recreation opportunities and facilities (e.g. trails, marina facilities, and group and individual campsites) would proceed in a manner that paid careful attention to the protection of natural and cultural resources. Alternative 3 would emphasize conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources, while providing visitor experiences consistent with the emphasis on stewardship. This last alternative would focus on relocation of facilities away from sensitive resource areas, upgrading of recreation facilities consistent with resource protection, management of areas upstream of the main lake for semi-primitive recreation, and restrictions on the lake such that boat densities and speed limits would be the lowest of the three alternatives. No expansion of the marina would be planned, and there would be no appreciable increase in the number of campsites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the state of California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities under Alternative 2 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use during burns. Alternatives allowing increases in boat densities on the lake would have a major impact on recreational experience for some visitors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100153, 447 pages and maps, April 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-17 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Millerton Lake State Recreation Area KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLERTON+LAKE+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MILLERTON+LAKE+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILLERTON LAKE GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - MILLERTON LAKE GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827293; 14304-100153_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Millerton Lake Resource Management Plan and General Management Plan is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the Millerton Lake State Recreation Area in Fresno and Madera counties, California. The area, which is administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BR), lies in the southern portion of California's Central Valley in the upper San Joaquin River Watershed. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative 1 would emphasize expanded recreation and would include the highest level of camping facilities (group and individual), additional boat ramps, and a new, expanded marina. The lake would be managed to provide for the highest possible boat densities and the fewest restrictions on boat type and speed. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would balance resource protection and recreation opportunities. The alternative would provide for upgrades and improvements for many of the park's existing facilities and utilities. This enhancement alternative would allow for fewer boats than Alternative 1, but more boats than Alternative 3. Boat speed limits would be reduced from Fine Gold Creek upstream in to Smith Basin and would be further reduced above Smith Basin. Boat size would be restricted to 35 feet. The development of new recreation opportunities and facilities (e.g. trails, marina facilities, and group and individual campsites) would proceed in a manner that paid careful attention to the protection of natural and cultural resources. Alternative 3 would emphasize conservation and protection of natural and cultural resources, while providing visitor experiences consistent with the emphasis on stewardship. This last alternative would focus on relocation of facilities away from sensitive resource areas, upgrading of recreation facilities consistent with resource protection, management of areas upstream of the main lake for semi-primitive recreation, and restrictions on the lake such that boat densities and speed limits would be the lowest of the three alternatives. No expansion of the marina would be planned, and there would be no appreciable increase in the number of campsites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the state of California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities under Alternative 2 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use during burns. Alternatives allowing increases in boat densities on the lake would have a major impact on recreational experience for some visitors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100153, 447 pages and maps, April 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-17 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Lakes KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Millerton Lake State Recreation Area KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILLERTON+LAKE+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MILLERTON+LAKE+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756827421; 14299-100148_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest system lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Each of the four action alternatives describe a variation and differing combination of route designations and mode of travel on approximately 3,730 miles of roads and about 1,050 miles of trails. Under all the alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, would designate 2,334 miles of road and would maintain 559 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. The preferred alternative would increase opportunities for mountain bike trail riding. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100148, Final EIS--302 pages, Appendices--493 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, April 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756827200; 14299-100148_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest system lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Each of the four action alternatives describe a variation and differing combination of route designations and mode of travel on approximately 3,730 miles of roads and about 1,050 miles of trails. Under all the alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, would designate 2,334 miles of road and would maintain 559 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. The preferred alternative would increase opportunities for mountain bike trail riding. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100148, Final EIS--302 pages, Appendices--493 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, April 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756827182; 14299-100148_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest system lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Each of the four action alternatives describe a variation and differing combination of route designations and mode of travel on approximately 3,730 miles of roads and about 1,050 miles of trails. Under all the alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, would designate 2,334 miles of road and would maintain 559 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. The preferred alternative would increase opportunities for mountain bike trail riding. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100148, Final EIS--302 pages, Appendices--493 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, April 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756827170; 14299-100148_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest system lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Each of the four action alternatives describe a variation and differing combination of route designations and mode of travel on approximately 3,730 miles of roads and about 1,050 miles of trails. Under all the alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, would designate 2,334 miles of road and would maintain 559 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. The preferred alternative would increase opportunities for mountain bike trail riding. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100148, Final EIS--302 pages, Appendices--493 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, April 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756827159; 14305-100154_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regrading waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue employment producing an average of more than $54 million in annual mining wages and $23 million in annual indirect wages. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100154, 247 pages and maps, April 21, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS PROJECT, NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16370404; 14305 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion and development of open pit gold mines and associated support facilities located within the previously permitted boundary for the Genesis-Bluestar Operations area, Eureka County, Nevada are proposed. The Genesis Project is located on public and private land approximately 20 miles north of Carlin, Nevada. Genesis-Bluestar Operations is an ongoing project on the Carlin Trend, a 50-mile-long by 10-mile-wide geologic area that has produced more than 60 million ounces of gold at numerous mines over the last 30 years. The proposed project would expand the existing Genesis open pit, backfill the Bluestar and Beast pits, and partially backfill the Genesis pit as mining progresses. Part of the waste rock would be placed in existing waste rock facilities. The proposal includes the development of a new 25-acre pit, the Bluestar Ridge Pit, dewatering the east wall of the mine at an estimated maximum rate of 250 gallons per minute for 10 years, and processing of 50 million tons of ore. Key issues identified during scoping include social and economic impacts, effects of dewatering on the regional water system, and classification and management of potentially acid-generating rock. The Genesis Project would have a 12-year operational mine life and closure activities could continue for a period of up to 30 years after mining activity is completed. Reclamation would include: regrading waste rock disposal facilities and stockpile areas, drainage control to channel run-off and minimize erosion, replacement of 622,000 cubic yards of salvaged growth media; hauling 3 million cubic yards of Carlin Formation material from the East Lantern Mine for use as growth media, revegetation, and monitoring of reclamation and water control structures. In addition to the proposed plan, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would continue employment producing an average of more than $54 million in annual mining wages and $23 million in annual indirect wages. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed expansion would rework existing mine disturbances and disturb an additional 43 acres for a total of 1,135 acres. Impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and migration corridors would occur. Mining would continue in open pits with fugitive dust emissions generated from wind and road dust. Gaseous and particulate emissions would be extended for 12 years. The possibility of ephemeral ponding of acidic water in the existing pits would continue and could require remedial treatment through the placement of neutralizing limestone rock. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100154, 247 pages and maps, April 21, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-10/13+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Erosion Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=GENESIS+PROJECT%2C+NEWMONT+MINING+CORPORATION%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 21, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORAL REEF RESTORATION PLAN, PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CORAL REEF RESTORATION PLAN, PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA. AN - 756827318; 14298-100147_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A coral reef restoration plan that would use a systematic approach for addressing injuries to coral reefs caused by vessel groundings within Biscayne National Park, Homestead, Florida is proposed. Biscayne National Park is approximately 22 miles long, with its northern boundary near Key Biscayne, and its southern boundary near Key Largo. The western boundary is defined by the landward extent of a mature red mangrove forest that forms a narrow band, 100 to 2,000 feet wide, along the western shore of Biscayne Bay. The eastern boundary follows the 60-foot-depth contour and the approximate width, from near-shore to off-shore environment is 14 miles. Biscayne National Park is the largest marine park in the National Park System with 95 percent of its 173,000 acres submerged and it preserves a unique, sensitive marine environment that is an important component of the south Florida ecosystem and economy. Approximately 200 vessel (recreational and commercial) groundings occur annually in the park, causing injuries to submerged resources. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft programmatic EIS. Currently, resource managers evaluate the impacts of coral reef restoration actions and specific restoration methods when planning and implementing restoration at each vessel-grounding incident. To address each coral injury under the programmatic alternative (Alternative 2), which is also the preferred alternative, the most appropriate restoration actions and specific restoration methods would be selected from a range of methods that already have had their impacts evaluated programmatically. Eleven reasonable and common coral reef restoration actions, some of which include a variety of methods, were identified and evaluated by an interdisciplinary team for inclusion in the toolbox proposed as a means of facilitating and expediting the selection of restoration actions at specific injury sites: 1) no active restoration/no monitoring; 2) monitoring only; 3) reattach biota; 4) biological seeding; 5) abate fuel/chemical spills; 6) remove bottom paint/fouling substance from reef; 7) seal fractures; 8) stabilize displaced substrate; 9) stabilize displaced substrate with artificial structures; 10) stabilize rubble; and 11) rubble removal from injury site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide staff and the public with a systematic approach to addressing coral reef injuries in the park and the timeframe required to evaluate impacts of restoration actions would be minimized under the preferred alternative. All restoration actions under consideration would improve reef resources within the park and help to create a stable, self-sustaining reef environment of similar topography and surface complexity to that which existed prior to any injury. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration actions would have short-term minor impacts as a result of diver contact and/or restoration equipment contact. Turbidity caused during site preparation, bottom paint removal, and/or use of bonding agents could cause minor adverse effects. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100147, 228 pages, April 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-23 KW - Bays KW - Chemical Spills KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Reefs KW - Ships KW - Toxicity KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%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 - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORAL REEF RESTORATION PLAN, PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA. AN - 16374320; 14298 AB - PURPOSE: A coral reef restoration plan that would use a systematic approach for addressing injuries to coral reefs caused by vessel groundings within Biscayne National Park, Homestead, Florida is proposed. Biscayne National Park is approximately 22 miles long, with its northern boundary near Key Biscayne, and its southern boundary near Key Largo. The western boundary is defined by the landward extent of a mature red mangrove forest that forms a narrow band, 100 to 2,000 feet wide, along the western shore of Biscayne Bay. The eastern boundary follows the 60-foot-depth contour and the approximate width, from near-shore to off-shore environment is 14 miles. Biscayne National Park is the largest marine park in the National Park System with 95 percent of its 173,000 acres submerged and it preserves a unique, sensitive marine environment that is an important component of the south Florida ecosystem and economy. Approximately 200 vessel (recreational and commercial) groundings occur annually in the park, causing injuries to submerged resources. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft programmatic EIS. Currently, resource managers evaluate the impacts of coral reef restoration actions and specific restoration methods when planning and implementing restoration at each vessel-grounding incident. To address each coral injury under the programmatic alternative (Alternative 2), which is also the preferred alternative, the most appropriate restoration actions and specific restoration methods would be selected from a range of methods that already have had their impacts evaluated programmatically. Eleven reasonable and common coral reef restoration actions, some of which include a variety of methods, were identified and evaluated by an interdisciplinary team for inclusion in the toolbox proposed as a means of facilitating and expediting the selection of restoration actions at specific injury sites: 1) no active restoration/no monitoring; 2) monitoring only; 3) reattach biota; 4) biological seeding; 5) abate fuel/chemical spills; 6) remove bottom paint/fouling substance from reef; 7) seal fractures; 8) stabilize displaced substrate; 9) stabilize displaced substrate with artificial structures; 10) stabilize rubble; and 11) rubble removal from injury site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide staff and the public with a systematic approach to addressing coral reef injuries in the park and the timeframe required to evaluate impacts of restoration actions would be minimized under the preferred alternative. All restoration actions under consideration would improve reef resources within the park and help to create a stable, self-sustaining reef environment of similar topography and surface complexity to that which existed prior to any injury. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration actions would have short-term minor impacts as a result of diver contact and/or restoration equipment contact. Turbidity caused during site preparation, bottom paint removal, and/or use of bonding agents could cause minor adverse effects. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100147, 228 pages, April 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-23 KW - Bays KW - Chemical Spills KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Reefs KW - Ships KW - Toxicity KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Biscayne Bay KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CORAL+REEF+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%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 - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876254000; 14292-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission approximately 69 miles of single-circuit 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, 77 miles of double-circuit 345kV transmission line, and two new 500/345/138kV substations. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including the proponent's proposed action, BLM's preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the proposed project would include: 1) a 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a single-circuit 500kV transmission line (initially operated at 345kV) that would connect the existing Mona substation to the proposed Mona Annex substation, then on to the future Limber substation; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Oquirrh substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Terminal substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A2 for the Mona to Limber segment and Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment. Alternative H is the proposed alternative for the Limber to Terminal segment, but no preferred alternative is identified because no BLM-admistered lands occur along this segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is approximately 35 miles in length and up to 250 feet in width outside of the designated utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 358 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0134D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100141, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, CD-ROM, April 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-11 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/876254000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249092; 14292-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission approximately 69 miles of single-circuit 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, 77 miles of double-circuit 345kV transmission line, and two new 500/345/138kV substations. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including the proponent's proposed action, BLM's preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the proposed project would include: 1) a 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a single-circuit 500kV transmission line (initially operated at 345kV) that would connect the existing Mona substation to the proposed Mona Annex substation, then on to the future Limber substation; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Oquirrh substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Terminal substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A2 for the Mona to Limber segment and Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment. Alternative H is the proposed alternative for the Limber to Terminal segment, but no preferred alternative is identified because no BLM-admistered lands occur along this segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is approximately 35 miles in length and up to 250 feet in width outside of the designated utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 358 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0134D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100141, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, CD-ROM, April 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-11 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/876249092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249088; 14292-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission approximately 69 miles of single-circuit 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, 77 miles of double-circuit 345kV transmission line, and two new 500/345/138kV substations. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including the proponent's proposed action, BLM's preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the proposed project would include: 1) a 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a single-circuit 500kV transmission line (initially operated at 345kV) that would connect the existing Mona substation to the proposed Mona Annex substation, then on to the future Limber substation; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Oquirrh substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Terminal substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A2 for the Mona to Limber segment and Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment. Alternative H is the proposed alternative for the Limber to Terminal segment, but no preferred alternative is identified because no BLM-admistered lands occur along this segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is approximately 35 miles in length and up to 250 feet in width outside of the designated utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 358 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0134D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100141, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, CD-ROM, April 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-11 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/876249088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 876249081; 14292-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission approximately 69 miles of single-circuit 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, 77 miles of double-circuit 345kV transmission line, and two new 500/345/138kV substations. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including the proponent's proposed action, BLM's preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the proposed project would include: 1) a 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a single-circuit 500kV transmission line (initially operated at 345kV) that would connect the existing Mona substation to the proposed Mona Annex substation, then on to the future Limber substation; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Oquirrh substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Terminal substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A2 for the Mona to Limber segment and Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment. Alternative H is the proposed alternative for the Limber to Terminal segment, but no preferred alternative is identified because no BLM-admistered lands occur along this segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is approximately 35 miles in length and up to 250 feet in width outside of the designated utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 358 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0134D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100141, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, CD-ROM, April 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-11 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/876249081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16367136; 14292 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission approximately 69 miles of single-circuit 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, 77 miles of double-circuit 345kV transmission line, and two new 500/345/138kV substations. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including the proponent's proposed action, BLM's preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the proposed project would include: 1) a 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a single-circuit 500kV transmission line (initially operated at 345kV) that would connect the existing Mona substation to the proposed Mona Annex substation, then on to the future Limber substation; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Oquirrh substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber substation to the existing Terminal substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A2 for the Mona to Limber segment and Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment. Alternative H is the proposed alternative for the Limber to Terminal segment, but no preferred alternative is identified because no BLM-admistered lands occur along this segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is approximately 35 miles in length and up to 250 feet in width outside of the designated utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 358 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0134D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100141, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--135 pages and maps, CD-ROM, April 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-11 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/16367136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827274; 14289-100138_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Lake Casitas of Ventura County, California is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 7,400-acre area, which focuses on the 2,700-acre lake. In addition to the lake, the area includes 1,200 acres of parkland in the area immediately around the lake, which has a shoreline of 35 miles, and 3,500 acres of open space lands. The Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the CMWD. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for body contact water sports, including water-skiing and beaches set up for swimmers. The majority of campsites would be modified for multiple uses, day use would be allowed on the Main Island, and equestrian use would be permitted within the open space lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the CMWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Trail construction and use and construction and use of other recreational and administrative facilities would result in loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cause direct conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. Increasing fishing pressure and other recreational pressures could damage spawning areas. The expected increase in the number of boats under Alternative 3 could result in major user conflicts. Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users with different intentions and between recreationists and wildlife could become problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use during burns. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100138, 452 pages and maps, April 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-06 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Lakes KW - Municipal Services KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Casitas KW - California KW - Millerton Lake State Recreation Area KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+CASITAS+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LAKE+CASITAS+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827078; 14289-100138_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Lake Casitas of Ventura County, California is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 7,400-acre area, which focuses on the 2,700-acre lake. In addition to the lake, the area includes 1,200 acres of parkland in the area immediately around the lake, which has a shoreline of 35 miles, and 3,500 acres of open space lands. The Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the CMWD. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for body contact water sports, including water-skiing and beaches set up for swimmers. The majority of campsites would be modified for multiple uses, day use would be allowed on the Main Island, and equestrian use would be permitted within the open space lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the CMWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Trail construction and use and construction and use of other recreational and administrative facilities would result in loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cause direct conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. Increasing fishing pressure and other recreational pressures could damage spawning areas. The expected increase in the number of boats under Alternative 3 could result in major user conflicts. Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users with different intentions and between recreationists and wildlife could become problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use during burns. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100138, 452 pages and maps, April 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-06 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Lakes KW - Municipal Services KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Casitas KW - California KW - Millerton Lake State Recreation Area KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+CASITAS+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LAKE+CASITAS+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827070; 14289-100138_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for Lake Casitas of Ventura County, California is proposed to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the 7,400-acre area, which focuses on the 2,700-acre lake. In addition to the lake, the area includes 1,200 acres of parkland in the area immediately around the lake, which has a shoreline of 35 miles, and 3,500 acres of open space lands. The Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) manages the planning area pursuant to a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the CMWD. The primary emphases of the RMP would be to protect water quality, water supply, and natural resources, while enhancing recreational uses in the planning area. Recreational uses must be compatible with the primary purpose of the area, which is to provide for reservoir storage for the delivery of high-quality water. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance natural resource protection and enhanced public access and recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would place the most emphasis on enhancing recreational opportunities and facilities. Alternative 3 would expand recreational uses and public access by implementing new or modified land and recreation management practices. Alternative 3 would include all of the management activities planned under Alternative 2 and would also make additional provisions for body contact water sports, including water-skiing and beaches set up for swimmers. The majority of campsites would be modified for multiple uses, day use would be allowed on the Main Island, and equestrian use would be permitted within the open space lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would enhance natural resources and recreational opportunities without interrupting reservoir operations; provide recreational opportunities to meet the demands of a growing, diverse population; ensure recreational diversity and quality; protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources; provide resource education opportunities to promote good stewardship; and provide updated management considerations for establishing a new management agreement between the BR and the CMWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Trail construction and use and construction and use of other recreational and administrative facilities would result in loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and cause direct conflicts between wildlife and recreationists. Increasing fishing pressure and other recreational pressures could damage spawning areas. The expected increase in the number of boats under Alternative 3 could result in major user conflicts. Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users with different intentions and between recreationists and wildlife could become problematic under the action alternatives. Facility construction under Alternative 3 would result in minor to major ground disturbance, causing the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and most likely resulting in damage to cultural resource sites. Smoke from prescribed burning would be an occasional temporary annoyance for recreationists and areas to be burned would be removed from recreational use during burns. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939. JF - EPA number: 100138, 452 pages and maps, April 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-06 KW - Air Quality KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources KW - Industrial Water KW - Lakes KW - Municipal Services KW - Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Casitas KW - California KW - Millerton Lake State Recreation Area KW - Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939, Program Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+CASITAS+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LAKE+CASITAS+GENERAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+MADERA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 876246376; 14283-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station (ISEGS) project, a solar concentrating thermal electricity generation facility, in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. BrightSource Energy, Inc., through Solar Partners I, II, IV, and VIII, has applied for four right-of-way grants form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the ISEGS project on 4,073 acres of public land. The project would use 100 acre feet of water per year, produce a nominal 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and operate for a term of 50 years. It would be constructed as three individual power plants with a shared administration building and construction logistics area. The project would include seven 469-foot tall power towers and installation of 214,000 heliostats (mirrors). Each of the three power plants would contain a power block with a steam turbine generator. The solar heat used in the boiler heat process would be supplemented by burning natural gas to heat a partial load steam boiler when solar conditions are insufficient. The power towers would incorporate dry cooling technology to minimize use of groundwater. Generator interconnection lines would tie each power plant into a new substation and the Southern California Edison transmission lines passing through the project boundary. The first two phases of the project, Ivanpah 1 and 2, would provide 100 MW of electricity and would occupy 914 acres and 921 acres respectively; the 200 MW phase, Ivanpah 3, would occupy 1,836 acres. Shared facilities would occupy an additional 25 acres and linear facilities, including the re-routing of Colosseum Road, and natural gas, water, and transmission lines would require an additional 56 acres. The draft EIS published on November 9, 2009, included a proposed amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan, evaluated a variety of project alternatives, and analyzed in detail the proposed project and a No Project/No Action Alternative. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes two additional alternatives to the proposed action: a reduction in acreage alternative called Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative, and a reconfigured alternative called the Modified I-15 Alternative. The facility evaluated in each of these alternatives would have a capacity of 370 MW. The Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative would be located entirely within the same property boundaries as the proposed project, but would occupy 3,564 acres, a reduction of 12.5 percent. The Modified I-15 Alternative would also occupy 3,564 acres, but one of the three power generating units would be reconfigured and placed closer to Interstate 15. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The ISEGS project would have major impacts to the biological resources of the Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat. Approximately 4,073 acres of occupied desert tortoise habitat would be permanently lost under the proposed project. Other species that could be impacted include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Crissal thrasher, golden eagle, and American badger. Eight special-status plant species would be directly impacted by construction and impacts to Mojave milkweed and Rusby's desert-mallow would remain significant even after implementation of proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values in the Ivanpah Valley and Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0366D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100132, Supplemental Draft EIS--299 pages, April 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-46 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 756827451; 14278-100127_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan at the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. Conditions in the Kerr Project license include minimum flow requirements from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition, Article 43 of the license requires the operator to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to lake level impacts, water and wildlife resources, tribal resources, socioeconomic concerns, and use of drought indicators. The proposed plan would use tiered operational changes over an annual timeframe and would: set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum instream flows to maintain an elevation of 2,892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungry Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 to June 15 when the drought management plan was activated to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum instream flow deviations; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,892.2 feet, and higher if possible, from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate the drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a deviation from the minimum instream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum instream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced, protecting water quality and fish habitat. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum instream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Kerr Dam from minimum instream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. [LEG]Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0482D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100127, 379 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STATE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SILVER STATE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756827444; 14280-100129_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 400-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar plant and associated facilities on public lands in southern Clark County, Nevada are proposed. NextLight Renewable Power, LLC has applied for a right-of-way grant form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the Silver State Solar Project on a site in Primm Valley, 40 miles south of Las Vegas and two miles southeast of Primm. The proposed project would be built in three phases: Phase I, consisting of a 60MW solar plant and associated facilities; Phase II, a 140MW plant and facilities; and Phase III, the remaining solar panels and infrastructure. The concentrated solar thermal parabolic trough power plant facility would operate for approximately 50 years. The solar field and infrastructure would consist of single-axis tracker systems or fixed panels, an underground and overhead electrical power collection system, two step-up transformers, 230-kilovolt (kV) and 220kV transmission lines, a 3.6-acre operation and maintenance area, switchyard, paved access and maintenance roads, flood and drainage controls and a fire break. Key issues identified during scoping included those related to the energy market, air quality and fugitive dust, water resources, vegetation and wildlife, the Mojave National Preserve, off-highway vehicle recreation, cultural and historic resources, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the proposed action and BLM's preferred alternative, up to 2,967 acres of land would be disturbed and berms would be used to reduce erosion. Implementation of Alternative 3, the modified site layout alternative, would disturb up to 4,818 acres of land and would employ an alternate drainage and flood control design to control erosion. These acreages include temporary disturbance during construction. Permanent disturbance would be 2,863 and 3,216 acres, respectively. Both action alternatives would use solar PV technology, although the specific types of arrays and trackers have not been determined at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the utility scale solar project at the proposed site would take advantage of Nevada's solar resource, allow direct interconnection with both the Nevada and California transmission systems, and help to meet federal requirements to use public lands for renewable energy development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, project facilities would disturb 2,967 acres and localized wind-driven soil erosion could occur. Native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species would be adversely affected. Construction would contribute to unavoidable habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Planned projects in the area, including the proposed project, would eliminate up to 106,065 acres of suitable desert tortoise habitat. Proposed renewable energy projects and transmission/pipeline projects that would be constructed during the timeframe of the proposed project would collectively occupy 20,000 acres of land and would significantly restrict recreational activities. After implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would remain visible on the landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100129, 560 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/LV/ES-10/21+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 756827427; 14278-100127_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan at the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. Conditions in the Kerr Project license include minimum flow requirements from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition, Article 43 of the license requires the operator to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to lake level impacts, water and wildlife resources, tribal resources, socioeconomic concerns, and use of drought indicators. The proposed plan would use tiered operational changes over an annual timeframe and would: set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum instream flows to maintain an elevation of 2,892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungry Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 to June 15 when the drought management plan was activated to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum instream flow deviations; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,892.2 feet, and higher if possible, from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate the drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a deviation from the minimum instream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum instream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced, protecting water quality and fish habitat. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum instream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Kerr Dam from minimum instream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. [LEG]Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0482D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100127, 379 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STATE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SILVER STATE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756827084; 14280-100129_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 400-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar plant and associated facilities on public lands in southern Clark County, Nevada are proposed. NextLight Renewable Power, LLC has applied for a right-of-way grant form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the Silver State Solar Project on a site in Primm Valley, 40 miles south of Las Vegas and two miles southeast of Primm. The proposed project would be built in three phases: Phase I, consisting of a 60MW solar plant and associated facilities; Phase II, a 140MW plant and facilities; and Phase III, the remaining solar panels and infrastructure. The concentrated solar thermal parabolic trough power plant facility would operate for approximately 50 years. The solar field and infrastructure would consist of single-axis tracker systems or fixed panels, an underground and overhead electrical power collection system, two step-up transformers, 230-kilovolt (kV) and 220kV transmission lines, a 3.6-acre operation and maintenance area, switchyard, paved access and maintenance roads, flood and drainage controls and a fire break. Key issues identified during scoping included those related to the energy market, air quality and fugitive dust, water resources, vegetation and wildlife, the Mojave National Preserve, off-highway vehicle recreation, cultural and historic resources, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the proposed action and BLM's preferred alternative, up to 2,967 acres of land would be disturbed and berms would be used to reduce erosion. Implementation of Alternative 3, the modified site layout alternative, would disturb up to 4,818 acres of land and would employ an alternate drainage and flood control design to control erosion. These acreages include temporary disturbance during construction. Permanent disturbance would be 2,863 and 3,216 acres, respectively. Both action alternatives would use solar PV technology, although the specific types of arrays and trackers have not been determined at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the utility scale solar project at the proposed site would take advantage of Nevada's solar resource, allow direct interconnection with both the Nevada and California transmission systems, and help to meet federal requirements to use public lands for renewable energy development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, project facilities would disturb 2,967 acres and localized wind-driven soil erosion could occur. Native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species would be adversely affected. Construction would contribute to unavoidable habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Planned projects in the area, including the proposed project, would eliminate up to 106,065 acres of suitable desert tortoise habitat. Proposed renewable energy projects and transmission/pipeline projects that would be constructed during the timeframe of the proposed project would collectively occupy 20,000 acres of land and would significantly restrict recreational activities. After implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would remain visible on the landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100129, 560 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/LV/ES-10/21+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE KERR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FLATHEAD LAKE, MONTANA. AN - 16384159; 14278 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a drought management plan at the Kerr Hydroelectric Project in Flathead Lake in Montana is proposed. The project currently operates under a joint license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1985 to the Montana Power Company (MPC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). In 1999, the license was transferred from MPC to the current operator, PPL Montana LLC. Conditions in the Kerr Project license include minimum flow requirements from the Kerr Project into the lower Flathead River downstream of the project. In addition, Article 43 of the license requires the operator to regulate Flathead Lake in accordance with a 1962 memorandum of understanding (MOU), as amended in 1965, between the MPC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The MOU provides for flood control by drawing Flathead Lake down every spring as well as for supporting recreational, tourism, and associated activities on the lake by refilling the lake in time for the summer season. During low-water years, there can be an insufficient volume of water to achieve Article 43 lake levels, while maintaining the minimum instream flow requirements. This situation is covered by Article 60 of the license, which requires the development of a drought management plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to lake level impacts, water and wildlife resources, tribal resources, socioeconomic concerns, and use of drought indicators. The proposed plan would use tiered operational changes over an annual timeframe and would: set an annual end-of-December lake elevation of 2,888 feet; analyze runoff predictions and prepare monthly operating curves in consultation with various agencies; revise the target lake elevation from 2,893 feet to 2,892 feet for the recreation season from June 15 to September 1 when the system was declared to be under drought conditions; and achieve and maintain a reduced summer pool elevation of 2,892 feet. The fourth provision would involve modifying the Article 56 minimum instream flows to maintain an elevation of 2,892 feet between June 15 and September 1 by matching inflows to outflows. If that was not possible, the plan would provide for increasing the flow from Hungry Horse Reservoir to maintain the 2,892-foot elevation from June 15 through September 1. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Alternative 1 would require annual hydroclimate reviews for October through December and January through April; tribal coordination for all decisions; a lake drawdown exception to allow deviation from the provisions of Article 43 to achieve a minimum lake level of 2,888 feet from December 31 though April 15; a lake refill exception from April 15 to June 15 when the drought management plan was activated to maintain lake elevations as high as flood control conditions allowed; prohibition of minimum instream flow deviations; and an attempt to attain a June 15 lake elevation no lower than 2,892.2 feet, and higher if possible, from June 16 to September 15. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to Alternative 1, except that based on runoff predictions, obtained no later than April 10, the licensee would either deactivate the drought management plan, maintain the drought management plan without a deviation from the minimum instream flow requirements of Article 56, or submit a notice of intent to the Secretary to deviate from the minimum instream flow requirements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would ensure the provision of water for support of the local biota and for Native American uses, including drinking and irrigation water. The social and economic conditions of the area and the environmental condition of the river downstream of the dam would be enhanced, protecting water quality and fish habitat. The dam and reservoir would continue to provide adequate flood control, protecting farmland, habitat, and human developments on the downstream floodplain. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unavoidable adverse impacts would arise from the fact that, under drought conditions, license requirements related to lake levels and minimum instream flows could not both be met. Each alternative would result in impacts associated with deviations from these requirements. All alternatives would result in lower lake levels under severe drought conditions. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 1, would establish revised lake elevation targets for the summer months. The only alternative that would avoid the potential for impacts to the Flathead River below Kerr Dam from minimum instream flow deviations would be Alternative 1. Reservoir and downstream river surface level fluctuations would damage banks and resources on and under bank surfaces and result in mudflats, particularly around the lake, during low water periods. [LEG]Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0482D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100127, 379 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Reservoirs KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Flathead Lake KW - Flathead River KW - Montana KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=DROUGHT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+KERR+HYDROELECTRIC+PROJECT%2C+FLATHEAD+LAKE%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STATE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16368686; 14280 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 400-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar plant and associated facilities on public lands in southern Clark County, Nevada are proposed. NextLight Renewable Power, LLC has applied for a right-of-way grant form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the Silver State Solar Project on a site in Primm Valley, 40 miles south of Las Vegas and two miles southeast of Primm. The proposed project would be built in three phases: Phase I, consisting of a 60MW solar plant and associated facilities; Phase II, a 140MW plant and facilities; and Phase III, the remaining solar panels and infrastructure. The concentrated solar thermal parabolic trough power plant facility would operate for approximately 50 years. The solar field and infrastructure would consist of single-axis tracker systems or fixed panels, an underground and overhead electrical power collection system, two step-up transformers, 230-kilovolt (kV) and 220kV transmission lines, a 3.6-acre operation and maintenance area, switchyard, paved access and maintenance roads, flood and drainage controls and a fire break. Key issues identified during scoping included those related to the energy market, air quality and fugitive dust, water resources, vegetation and wildlife, the Mojave National Preserve, off-highway vehicle recreation, cultural and historic resources, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the proposed action and BLM's preferred alternative, up to 2,967 acres of land would be disturbed and berms would be used to reduce erosion. Implementation of Alternative 3, the modified site layout alternative, would disturb up to 4,818 acres of land and would employ an alternate drainage and flood control design to control erosion. These acreages include temporary disturbance during construction. Permanent disturbance would be 2,863 and 3,216 acres, respectively. Both action alternatives would use solar PV technology, although the specific types of arrays and trackers have not been determined at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the utility scale solar project at the proposed site would take advantage of Nevada's solar resource, allow direct interconnection with both the Nevada and California transmission systems, and help to meet federal requirements to use public lands for renewable energy development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, project facilities would disturb 2,967 acres and localized wind-driven soil erosion could occur. Native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species would be adversely affected. Construction would contribute to unavoidable habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Planned projects in the area, including the proposed project, would eliminate up to 106,065 acres of suitable desert tortoise habitat. Proposed renewable energy projects and transmission/pipeline projects that would be constructed during the timeframe of the proposed project would collectively occupy 20,000 acres of land and would significantly restrict recreational activities. After implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would remain visible on the landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100129, 560 pages, April 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/LV/ES-10/21+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SILVER+STATE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827307; 14275-100124_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration of a functional, self-sustaining ecosystem at a coastal wetland site known as Prisoners Harbor and a 40-acre associated stream corridor in the Lower Canada del Porto Creek on Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara, California is proposed. Santa Cruz Island is the largest of the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California and is the home of a variety of unique wildlife and plants and an estimated 3,000 archeological sites associated with the Chumash culture. Ninety percent of the island is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The proposed project area has been ecologically altered over the past 150 years by filling of the wetland, introduction of non-native vegetation, and construction of berm, buildings, roads, and corrals. The degraded wetlands include three types: marine, palustrine, and riverine. The 59.7 acre project area is located at Prisoners Harbor and along the Canada del Puerto on the north side of Santa Cruz Island. The 19-acre Prisoners Harbor area is owned by the National Park Service and the remaining portion in Canada del Porto Canyon is owned by The Nature Conservancy. Key issues identified during scoping include issues related to park planning, archeological and historic resources, wetland restoration, eucalyptus removal, and visitor experience at the park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would not conduct any restoration activities, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would remove all of the cattle corrals and restore 3.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, relocate the scale house to its pre-1960s location, remove eucalyptus, control invasive species, construct a protective barrier around a portion of the archeological site, and improve the visitor experience. In addition, a portion of the berm would be removed to reconnect the creek to its floodplain. Alternative C differs from B in that it would remove six of the eight cattle corrals and restore 2.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, without relocating the scale house. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would restore ecosystem function to the former coastal backbarrier wetland at Prisoners Harbor and initiate ecosystem recovery to its associated stream corridor in the Lower Canada del Porto while protecting cultural resources, the pier, and the access road. Restoration would result in an additional 3.1 acres of native wetland and 20 acres of riparian habitat for plants and wildlife. Archeological and historic resources would be protected from erosion and degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Riparian restoration activities could disturb existing native vegetation. Removal of the berm would have minor adverse impact related to hydrologic processes due to increased flood frequency. However, flood water velocity and power should be mitigated due to the enlarged left bank floodplain. Removal of corrals and the rock retaining wall would adversely impact historical resources but the district would retain NRHP eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0229D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100124, 371 pages, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Channel Islands National Park KW - Santa Cruz Island KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLAND+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLAND+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ventura, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756827289; 14276-100125_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. In addition, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan is proposed to allow the Bureau of Land Management to issue a major right-of-way and to establish a new utility corridor that would accommodate the pipeline. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States and in response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah which recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. The proposed action would include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives with pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term increase in erosion. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and potential habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat. Four water supply wells lie within 10 feet of the proposed pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors. More than 300 cultural resource sites have been identified in the study corridor and 164 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 16 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0026D, Volume 33, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 010190F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100125, Final EIS--311 pages, Appendices--324 pages and maps, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 09-20 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756827287; 14276-100125_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. In addition, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan is proposed to allow the Bureau of Land Management to issue a major right-of-way and to establish a new utility corridor that would accommodate the pipeline. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States and in response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah which recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. The proposed action would include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives with pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term increase in erosion. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and potential habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat. Four water supply wells lie within 10 feet of the proposed pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors. More than 300 cultural resource sites have been identified in the study corridor and 164 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 16 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0026D, Volume 33, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 010190F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100125, Final EIS--311 pages, Appendices--324 pages and maps, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 09-20 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756827280; 14276-100125_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. In addition, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan is proposed to allow the Bureau of Land Management to issue a major right-of-way and to establish a new utility corridor that would accommodate the pipeline. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States and in response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah which recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. The proposed action would include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives with pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term increase in erosion. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and potential habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat. Four water supply wells lie within 10 feet of the proposed pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors. More than 300 cultural resource sites have been identified in the study corridor and 164 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 16 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0026D, Volume 33, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 010190F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100125, Final EIS--311 pages, Appendices--324 pages and maps, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 09-20 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756827277; 14276-100125_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. In addition, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan is proposed to allow the Bureau of Land Management to issue a major right-of-way and to establish a new utility corridor that would accommodate the pipeline. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States and in response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah which recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. The proposed action would include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives with pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term increase in erosion. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and potential habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat. Four water supply wells lie within 10 feet of the proposed pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors. More than 300 cultural resource sites have been identified in the study corridor and 164 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 16 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0026D, Volume 33, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 010190F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100125, Final EIS--311 pages, Appendices--324 pages and maps, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 09-20 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756827270; 14276-100125_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. In addition, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan is proposed to allow the Bureau of Land Management to issue a major right-of-way and to establish a new utility corridor that would accommodate the pipeline. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States and in response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah which recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. The proposed action would include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives with pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term increase in erosion. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and potential habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat. Four water supply wells lie within 10 feet of the proposed pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors. More than 300 cultural resource sites have been identified in the study corridor and 164 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 16 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0026D, Volume 33, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 010190F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100125, Final EIS--311 pages, Appendices--324 pages and maps, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 09-20 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JUAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 754908563; 14276 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. In addition, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan is proposed to allow the Bureau of Land Management to issue a major right-of-way and to establish a new utility corridor that would accommodate the pipeline. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States and in response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah which recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. The proposed action would include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives with pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During the eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term increase in erosion. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and potential habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat. Four water supply wells lie within 10 feet of the proposed pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors. More than 300 cultural resource sites have been identified in the study corridor and 164 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 16 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0026D, Volume 33, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 010190F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100125, Final EIS--311 pages, Appendices--324 pages and maps, April 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 09-20 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JUAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756827058; 14214-100119_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population control plan in Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) of North Dakota is proposed. As a result of past and current actions within and beyond the park, several conditions have led to the increase of the park elk population to the approximately 900 that occur in the South Unit today. This includes the absence of effective elk predators; public hunting outside the park which does not appear to control population size within the park; high reproduction, survival, and population growth rates; lack of elk mortality such as winter kill; and the inability of the park to translocate elk without testing to show that the NPS is 99 percent confident that chronic wasting disease (CWD) is present in less than 1 percent of the population. These conditions are expected to continue and the population is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Population reductions via relocations have not taken place since 2000. The presence of high quality habitat in the park and surrounding agricultural areas creates the potential for the TRNP elk population to reach unnaturally high levels in the near future. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A would be limited to vegetation and elk population monitoring in elk use areas. Under Alternative B, the elk population would be reduced to between 100 and 400 via sharpshooters with firearms to lethally remove elk from the park during both initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative C, roundup and euthanasia would be employed for both the initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative D, the NPS would seek to conduct initial reduction and maintenance actions using CWD testing and relocation of elk. Under Alternative E, the NPS would attempt to increase elk hunting opportunities outside the park, coordinating its hunting management scheme with state actions designed to reduce and maintain elk population levels. Alternative F would rely on fertility control measures, focusing on female elk, as a maintenance tool only. The preferred alternative would employ a suite of techniques contained in alternatives B, C, and D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Elk management under alternatives B through E would preserve vegetation and other natural resources in the park from the impacts of elk overpopulation. Forage levels needed by other species would be maintained and the risk of CWD would decline significantly with the decline in the numbers of elk. The decline in CWD would allow relocation of excess elk to areas where elk could be reintroduced without the fear of spreading CWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A significant decline in the elk population would allow recovery of vegetation and thereby reduce the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Management actions that include the use of firearms and helicopters would create substantial noise intrusion. Female fertility control measures would have an unknown impact on population, as significant field testing has not yet been performed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0059D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100119, 622 pages, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-07 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Dakota KW - Theodore Roosevelt National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827058?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Medora, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756826933; 14214-100119_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population control plan in Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) of North Dakota is proposed. As a result of past and current actions within and beyond the park, several conditions have led to the increase of the park elk population to the approximately 900 that occur in the South Unit today. This includes the absence of effective elk predators; public hunting outside the park which does not appear to control population size within the park; high reproduction, survival, and population growth rates; lack of elk mortality such as winter kill; and the inability of the park to translocate elk without testing to show that the NPS is 99 percent confident that chronic wasting disease (CWD) is present in less than 1 percent of the population. These conditions are expected to continue and the population is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Population reductions via relocations have not taken place since 2000. The presence of high quality habitat in the park and surrounding agricultural areas creates the potential for the TRNP elk population to reach unnaturally high levels in the near future. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A would be limited to vegetation and elk population monitoring in elk use areas. Under Alternative B, the elk population would be reduced to between 100 and 400 via sharpshooters with firearms to lethally remove elk from the park during both initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative C, roundup and euthanasia would be employed for both the initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative D, the NPS would seek to conduct initial reduction and maintenance actions using CWD testing and relocation of elk. Under Alternative E, the NPS would attempt to increase elk hunting opportunities outside the park, coordinating its hunting management scheme with state actions designed to reduce and maintain elk population levels. Alternative F would rely on fertility control measures, focusing on female elk, as a maintenance tool only. The preferred alternative would employ a suite of techniques contained in alternatives B, C, and D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Elk management under alternatives B through E would preserve vegetation and other natural resources in the park from the impacts of elk overpopulation. Forage levels needed by other species would be maintained and the risk of CWD would decline significantly with the decline in the numbers of elk. The decline in CWD would allow relocation of excess elk to areas where elk could be reintroduced without the fear of spreading CWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A significant decline in the elk population would allow recovery of vegetation and thereby reduce the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Management actions that include the use of firearms and helicopters would create substantial noise intrusion. Female fertility control measures would have an unknown impact on population, as significant field testing has not yet been performed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0059D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100119, 622 pages, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-07 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Dakota KW - Theodore Roosevelt National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Medora, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756826544; 14214-100119_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population control plan in Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) of North Dakota is proposed. As a result of past and current actions within and beyond the park, several conditions have led to the increase of the park elk population to the approximately 900 that occur in the South Unit today. This includes the absence of effective elk predators; public hunting outside the park which does not appear to control population size within the park; high reproduction, survival, and population growth rates; lack of elk mortality such as winter kill; and the inability of the park to translocate elk without testing to show that the NPS is 99 percent confident that chronic wasting disease (CWD) is present in less than 1 percent of the population. These conditions are expected to continue and the population is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Population reductions via relocations have not taken place since 2000. The presence of high quality habitat in the park and surrounding agricultural areas creates the potential for the TRNP elk population to reach unnaturally high levels in the near future. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A would be limited to vegetation and elk population monitoring in elk use areas. Under Alternative B, the elk population would be reduced to between 100 and 400 via sharpshooters with firearms to lethally remove elk from the park during both initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative C, roundup and euthanasia would be employed for both the initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative D, the NPS would seek to conduct initial reduction and maintenance actions using CWD testing and relocation of elk. Under Alternative E, the NPS would attempt to increase elk hunting opportunities outside the park, coordinating its hunting management scheme with state actions designed to reduce and maintain elk population levels. Alternative F would rely on fertility control measures, focusing on female elk, as a maintenance tool only. The preferred alternative would employ a suite of techniques contained in alternatives B, C, and D. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Elk management under alternatives B through E would preserve vegetation and other natural resources in the park from the impacts of elk overpopulation. Forage levels needed by other species would be maintained and the risk of CWD would decline significantly with the decline in the numbers of elk. The decline in CWD would allow relocation of excess elk to areas where elk could be reintroduced without the fear of spreading CWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A significant decline in the elk population would allow recovery of vegetation and thereby reduce the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Management actions that include the use of firearms and helicopters would create substantial noise intrusion. Female fertility control measures would have an unknown impact on population, as significant field testing has not yet been performed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0059D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100119, 622 pages, April 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-07 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Dakota KW - Theodore Roosevelt National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Medora, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826990; 14210-100115_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California is proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on Federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project proposed new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blow down would be piped to lined, onsite evaporation ponds (two 30-acre ponds that would be covered to discourage migratory and local bird usage). After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a licensed, non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. Three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is BLM's currently preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100115, 1,539 pages, April 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-19 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, 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/756826990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826923; 14210-100115_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California is proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on Federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project proposed new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blow down would be piped to lined, onsite evaporation ponds (two 30-acre ponds that would be covered to discourage migratory and local bird usage). After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a licensed, non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. Three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is BLM's currently preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100115, 1,539 pages, April 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-19 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, 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/756826923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826629; 14210-100115_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California is proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on Federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project proposed new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blow down would be piped to lined, onsite evaporation ponds (two 30-acre ponds that would be covered to discourage migratory and local bird usage). After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a licensed, non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. Three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is BLM's currently preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100115, 1,539 pages, April 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-19 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, 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/756826629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826532; 14210-100115_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California is proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on Federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project proposed new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blow down would be piped to lined, onsite evaporation ponds (two 30-acre ponds that would be covered to discourage migratory and local bird usage). After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a licensed, non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. Three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is BLM's currently preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100115, 1,539 pages, April 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-19 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, 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/756826532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826518; 14210-100115_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California is proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on Federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project proposed new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blow down would be piped to lined, onsite evaporation ponds (two 30-acre ponds that would be covered to discourage migratory and local bird usage). After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a licensed, non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. Three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is BLM's currently preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100115, 1,539 pages, April 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-19 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, 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/756826518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16372619; 14210 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California is proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness Areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on Federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project proposed new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blow down would be piped to lined, onsite evaporation ponds (two 30-acre ponds that would be covered to discourage migratory and local bird usage). After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a licensed, non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. Three alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is BLM's currently preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100115, 1,539 pages, April 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-19 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, 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/16372619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827138; 14206-100111_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 250 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on 2,000 acres of a 3,995-acre site five miles southwest of Ridgecrest, California is proposed. The project site, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is located in north eastern Kern County, along U.S. Highway 395, just west of the China Lake Boulevard exit. Solar Millennium LLC filed an application with the U.S. Bureau of BLM for a right-of-Way grant on public land together with a related plan of development and a draft land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and is seeking approval to develop the Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (RSPP). The project would consist of two solar fields, a power block, construction areas, a dry-cooling tower, steel transmission towers with associated transmission lines, access roads, three covered water tanks, an underground water pipeline, a water treatment facility, an electrical switchyard, a land treatment unit for bioremediation of any soil that may be contaminated by heat transfer fluid, an office, a warehouse, a parking lot, and facility perimeter fencing. The proposed RSPP would utilize parabolic trough, solar collectors to concentrate solar energy onto heat collection elements that contain a fluid, known as heat transfer fluid (HTF). After being heated by the solar troughs, the HTF is run through a heat exchanger where it boils water for conversion to steam. In the next stage, the high pressure steam drives a Rankine-cycle reheat, steam turbine, electric generator. The project would use an air-cooled condenser (ACC), commonly referred to as dry cooling that would eliminate the need to use water for power plant cooling and eliminate visible plume associated with wet cooling towers. Total water consumption for the 250-MW facility is estimated at approximately 150 acre-feet per year, which is proposed to be supplied by the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) via a new pipeline. The new 12 to 16-inch diameter, five-mile long water pipeline would be installed within the Brown Road and China Lake Boulevard rights-of-way to a point of connection with the IWVWD water tank. A new 230kV transmission line from a new switchyard would connect to a new substation that would in turn interconnect with Southern California Edisons (SCE) existing 230kV Inyokern/Kramer Junction transmission line passing west of the project site. Additionally, the Project would require the relocation of roughly 10,000 feet (1.6 miles) of two existing transmission lines owned and operated by SCE. The first is a double-circuit 230kV line (with one of the circuits currently operated at 115kV) and the second is a double-circuit 115kV line. A No Action Alternative and four build alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: Alternative 1, the proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,944 acres); Alternative 2, Northern Unit Only (146 MW sited on 1,118 acres); Alternative 3, Southern Unit Only (104 MW sited on 809 acres); and Alternative 4, original proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,760 acres). Alternative 1 is the currently preferred alternative because it avoids El Paso Wash, the surrounding floodplain, and related high quality habitat, thus reducing impacts to Mohave ground squirrel habitat compared with the original proposed project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would permanently destroy an important biological resource, a site which supports one of the highest concentrations of desert tortoise in the western United States and represents an important geographic area which supports connectivity and genetic linkage between populations of endangered Mohave ground squirrel. Impacts could occur to burrowing owl, Mojave fringe-toed Lizard, and desert kit fox. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100111, 1,483 pages, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-14 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827125; 14206-100111_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 250 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on 2,000 acres of a 3,995-acre site five miles southwest of Ridgecrest, California is proposed. The project site, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is located in north eastern Kern County, along U.S. Highway 395, just west of the China Lake Boulevard exit. Solar Millennium LLC filed an application with the U.S. Bureau of BLM for a right-of-Way grant on public land together with a related plan of development and a draft land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and is seeking approval to develop the Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (RSPP). The project would consist of two solar fields, a power block, construction areas, a dry-cooling tower, steel transmission towers with associated transmission lines, access roads, three covered water tanks, an underground water pipeline, a water treatment facility, an electrical switchyard, a land treatment unit for bioremediation of any soil that may be contaminated by heat transfer fluid, an office, a warehouse, a parking lot, and facility perimeter fencing. The proposed RSPP would utilize parabolic trough, solar collectors to concentrate solar energy onto heat collection elements that contain a fluid, known as heat transfer fluid (HTF). After being heated by the solar troughs, the HTF is run through a heat exchanger where it boils water for conversion to steam. In the next stage, the high pressure steam drives a Rankine-cycle reheat, steam turbine, electric generator. The project would use an air-cooled condenser (ACC), commonly referred to as dry cooling that would eliminate the need to use water for power plant cooling and eliminate visible plume associated with wet cooling towers. Total water consumption for the 250-MW facility is estimated at approximately 150 acre-feet per year, which is proposed to be supplied by the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) via a new pipeline. The new 12 to 16-inch diameter, five-mile long water pipeline would be installed within the Brown Road and China Lake Boulevard rights-of-way to a point of connection with the IWVWD water tank. A new 230kV transmission line from a new switchyard would connect to a new substation that would in turn interconnect with Southern California Edisons (SCE) existing 230kV Inyokern/Kramer Junction transmission line passing west of the project site. Additionally, the Project would require the relocation of roughly 10,000 feet (1.6 miles) of two existing transmission lines owned and operated by SCE. The first is a double-circuit 230kV line (with one of the circuits currently operated at 115kV) and the second is a double-circuit 115kV line. A No Action Alternative and four build alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: Alternative 1, the proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,944 acres); Alternative 2, Northern Unit Only (146 MW sited on 1,118 acres); Alternative 3, Southern Unit Only (104 MW sited on 809 acres); and Alternative 4, original proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,760 acres). Alternative 1 is the currently preferred alternative because it avoids El Paso Wash, the surrounding floodplain, and related high quality habitat, thus reducing impacts to Mohave ground squirrel habitat compared with the original proposed project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would permanently destroy an important biological resource, a site which supports one of the highest concentrations of desert tortoise in the western United States and represents an important geographic area which supports connectivity and genetic linkage between populations of endangered Mohave ground squirrel. Impacts could occur to burrowing owl, Mojave fringe-toed Lizard, and desert kit fox. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100111, 1,483 pages, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-14 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827108; 14206-100111_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 250 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on 2,000 acres of a 3,995-acre site five miles southwest of Ridgecrest, California is proposed. The project site, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is located in north eastern Kern County, along U.S. Highway 395, just west of the China Lake Boulevard exit. Solar Millennium LLC filed an application with the U.S. Bureau of BLM for a right-of-Way grant on public land together with a related plan of development and a draft land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and is seeking approval to develop the Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (RSPP). The project would consist of two solar fields, a power block, construction areas, a dry-cooling tower, steel transmission towers with associated transmission lines, access roads, three covered water tanks, an underground water pipeline, a water treatment facility, an electrical switchyard, a land treatment unit for bioremediation of any soil that may be contaminated by heat transfer fluid, an office, a warehouse, a parking lot, and facility perimeter fencing. The proposed RSPP would utilize parabolic trough, solar collectors to concentrate solar energy onto heat collection elements that contain a fluid, known as heat transfer fluid (HTF). After being heated by the solar troughs, the HTF is run through a heat exchanger where it boils water for conversion to steam. In the next stage, the high pressure steam drives a Rankine-cycle reheat, steam turbine, electric generator. The project would use an air-cooled condenser (ACC), commonly referred to as dry cooling that would eliminate the need to use water for power plant cooling and eliminate visible plume associated with wet cooling towers. Total water consumption for the 250-MW facility is estimated at approximately 150 acre-feet per year, which is proposed to be supplied by the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) via a new pipeline. The new 12 to 16-inch diameter, five-mile long water pipeline would be installed within the Brown Road and China Lake Boulevard rights-of-way to a point of connection with the IWVWD water tank. A new 230kV transmission line from a new switchyard would connect to a new substation that would in turn interconnect with Southern California Edisons (SCE) existing 230kV Inyokern/Kramer Junction transmission line passing west of the project site. Additionally, the Project would require the relocation of roughly 10,000 feet (1.6 miles) of two existing transmission lines owned and operated by SCE. The first is a double-circuit 230kV line (with one of the circuits currently operated at 115kV) and the second is a double-circuit 115kV line. A No Action Alternative and four build alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: Alternative 1, the proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,944 acres); Alternative 2, Northern Unit Only (146 MW sited on 1,118 acres); Alternative 3, Southern Unit Only (104 MW sited on 809 acres); and Alternative 4, original proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,760 acres). Alternative 1 is the currently preferred alternative because it avoids El Paso Wash, the surrounding floodplain, and related high quality habitat, thus reducing impacts to Mohave ground squirrel habitat compared with the original proposed project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would permanently destroy an important biological resource, a site which supports one of the highest concentrations of desert tortoise in the western United States and represents an important geographic area which supports connectivity and genetic linkage between populations of endangered Mohave ground squirrel. Impacts could occur to burrowing owl, Mojave fringe-toed Lizard, and desert kit fox. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100111, 1,483 pages, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-14 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826723; 14206-100111_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 250 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on 2,000 acres of a 3,995-acre site five miles southwest of Ridgecrest, California is proposed. The project site, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is located in north eastern Kern County, along U.S. Highway 395, just west of the China Lake Boulevard exit. Solar Millennium LLC filed an application with the U.S. Bureau of BLM for a right-of-Way grant on public land together with a related plan of development and a draft land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and is seeking approval to develop the Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (RSPP). The project would consist of two solar fields, a power block, construction areas, a dry-cooling tower, steel transmission towers with associated transmission lines, access roads, three covered water tanks, an underground water pipeline, a water treatment facility, an electrical switchyard, a land treatment unit for bioremediation of any soil that may be contaminated by heat transfer fluid, an office, a warehouse, a parking lot, and facility perimeter fencing. The proposed RSPP would utilize parabolic trough, solar collectors to concentrate solar energy onto heat collection elements that contain a fluid, known as heat transfer fluid (HTF). After being heated by the solar troughs, the HTF is run through a heat exchanger where it boils water for conversion to steam. In the next stage, the high pressure steam drives a Rankine-cycle reheat, steam turbine, electric generator. The project would use an air-cooled condenser (ACC), commonly referred to as dry cooling that would eliminate the need to use water for power plant cooling and eliminate visible plume associated with wet cooling towers. Total water consumption for the 250-MW facility is estimated at approximately 150 acre-feet per year, which is proposed to be supplied by the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) via a new pipeline. The new 12 to 16-inch diameter, five-mile long water pipeline would be installed within the Brown Road and China Lake Boulevard rights-of-way to a point of connection with the IWVWD water tank. A new 230kV transmission line from a new switchyard would connect to a new substation that would in turn interconnect with Southern California Edisons (SCE) existing 230kV Inyokern/Kramer Junction transmission line passing west of the project site. Additionally, the Project would require the relocation of roughly 10,000 feet (1.6 miles) of two existing transmission lines owned and operated by SCE. The first is a double-circuit 230kV line (with one of the circuits currently operated at 115kV) and the second is a double-circuit 115kV line. A No Action Alternative and four build alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: Alternative 1, the proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,944 acres); Alternative 2, Northern Unit Only (146 MW sited on 1,118 acres); Alternative 3, Southern Unit Only (104 MW sited on 809 acres); and Alternative 4, original proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,760 acres). Alternative 1 is the currently preferred alternative because it avoids El Paso Wash, the surrounding floodplain, and related high quality habitat, thus reducing impacts to Mohave ground squirrel habitat compared with the original proposed project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would permanently destroy an important biological resource, a site which supports one of the highest concentrations of desert tortoise in the western United States and represents an important geographic area which supports connectivity and genetic linkage between populations of endangered Mohave ground squirrel. Impacts could occur to burrowing owl, Mojave fringe-toed Lizard, and desert kit fox. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100111, 1,483 pages, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-14 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826712; 14206-100111_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 250 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on 2,000 acres of a 3,995-acre site five miles southwest of Ridgecrest, California is proposed. The project site, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is located in north eastern Kern County, along U.S. Highway 395, just west of the China Lake Boulevard exit. Solar Millennium LLC filed an application with the U.S. Bureau of BLM for a right-of-Way grant on public land together with a related plan of development and a draft land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and is seeking approval to develop the Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (RSPP). The project would consist of two solar fields, a power block, construction areas, a dry-cooling tower, steel transmission towers with associated transmission lines, access roads, three covered water tanks, an underground water pipeline, a water treatment facility, an electrical switchyard, a land treatment unit for bioremediation of any soil that may be contaminated by heat transfer fluid, an office, a warehouse, a parking lot, and facility perimeter fencing. The proposed RSPP would utilize parabolic trough, solar collectors to concentrate solar energy onto heat collection elements that contain a fluid, known as heat transfer fluid (HTF). After being heated by the solar troughs, the HTF is run through a heat exchanger where it boils water for conversion to steam. In the next stage, the high pressure steam drives a Rankine-cycle reheat, steam turbine, electric generator. The project would use an air-cooled condenser (ACC), commonly referred to as dry cooling that would eliminate the need to use water for power plant cooling and eliminate visible plume associated with wet cooling towers. Total water consumption for the 250-MW facility is estimated at approximately 150 acre-feet per year, which is proposed to be supplied by the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) via a new pipeline. The new 12 to 16-inch diameter, five-mile long water pipeline would be installed within the Brown Road and China Lake Boulevard rights-of-way to a point of connection with the IWVWD water tank. A new 230kV transmission line from a new switchyard would connect to a new substation that would in turn interconnect with Southern California Edisons (SCE) existing 230kV Inyokern/Kramer Junction transmission line passing west of the project site. Additionally, the Project would require the relocation of roughly 10,000 feet (1.6 miles) of two existing transmission lines owned and operated by SCE. The first is a double-circuit 230kV line (with one of the circuits currently operated at 115kV) and the second is a double-circuit 115kV line. A No Action Alternative and four build alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: Alternative 1, the proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,944 acres); Alternative 2, Northern Unit Only (146 MW sited on 1,118 acres); Alternative 3, Southern Unit Only (104 MW sited on 809 acres); and Alternative 4, original proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,760 acres). Alternative 1 is the currently preferred alternative because it avoids El Paso Wash, the surrounding floodplain, and related high quality habitat, thus reducing impacts to Mohave ground squirrel habitat compared with the original proposed project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would permanently destroy an important biological resource, a site which supports one of the highest concentrations of desert tortoise in the western United States and represents an important geographic area which supports connectivity and genetic linkage between populations of endangered Mohave ground squirrel. Impacts could occur to burrowing owl, Mojave fringe-toed Lizard, and desert kit fox. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100111, 1,483 pages, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-14 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIDGECREST SOLAR POWER PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16383696; 14206 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 250 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on 2,000 acres of a 3,995-acre site five miles southwest of Ridgecrest, California is proposed. The project site, currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is located in north eastern Kern County, along U.S. Highway 395, just west of the China Lake Boulevard exit. Solar Millennium LLC filed an application with the U.S. Bureau of BLM for a right-of-Way grant on public land together with a related plan of development and a draft land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and is seeking approval to develop the Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (RSPP). The project would consist of two solar fields, a power block, construction areas, a dry-cooling tower, steel transmission towers with associated transmission lines, access roads, three covered water tanks, an underground water pipeline, a water treatment facility, an electrical switchyard, a land treatment unit for bioremediation of any soil that may be contaminated by heat transfer fluid, an office, a warehouse, a parking lot, and facility perimeter fencing. The proposed RSPP would utilize parabolic trough, solar collectors to concentrate solar energy onto heat collection elements that contain a fluid, known as heat transfer fluid (HTF). After being heated by the solar troughs, the HTF is run through a heat exchanger where it boils water for conversion to steam. In the next stage, the high pressure steam drives a Rankine-cycle reheat, steam turbine, electric generator. The project would use an air-cooled condenser (ACC), commonly referred to as dry cooling that would eliminate the need to use water for power plant cooling and eliminate visible plume associated with wet cooling towers. Total water consumption for the 250-MW facility is estimated at approximately 150 acre-feet per year, which is proposed to be supplied by the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) via a new pipeline. The new 12 to 16-inch diameter, five-mile long water pipeline would be installed within the Brown Road and China Lake Boulevard rights-of-way to a point of connection with the IWVWD water tank. A new 230kV transmission line from a new switchyard would connect to a new substation that would in turn interconnect with Southern California Edisons (SCE) existing 230kV Inyokern/Kramer Junction transmission line passing west of the project site. Additionally, the Project would require the relocation of roughly 10,000 feet (1.6 miles) of two existing transmission lines owned and operated by SCE. The first is a double-circuit 230kV line (with one of the circuits currently operated at 115kV) and the second is a double-circuit 115kV line. A No Action Alternative and four build alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS: Alternative 1, the proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,944 acres); Alternative 2, Northern Unit Only (146 MW sited on 1,118 acres); Alternative 3, Southern Unit Only (104 MW sited on 809 acres); and Alternative 4, original proposed project (250 MW sited on 1,760 acres). Alternative 1 is the currently preferred alternative because it avoids El Paso Wash, the surrounding floodplain, and related high quality habitat, thus reducing impacts to Mohave ground squirrel habitat compared with the original proposed project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would permanently destroy an important biological resource, a site which supports one of the highest concentrations of desert tortoise in the western United States and represents an important geographic area which supports connectivity and genetic linkage between populations of endangered Mohave ground squirrel. Impacts could occur to burrowing owl, Mojave fringe-toed Lizard, and desert kit fox. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100111, 1,483 pages, March 31, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-14 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIDGECREST+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 31, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130350; 14202-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130335; 14202-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130318; 14202-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129759; 14202-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128380; 14202-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128374; 14202-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126880; 14202-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA . [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA . AN - 756826564; 14203-100108_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an electrical generating facility, using concentrated solar thermal (CST) power on 3,700 acres of federally managed lands south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). Land ownership is almost exclusively Bureau of Land Management, with approximately 1.5 miles of road improvements proposed on private and state lands at the western edge of the project area, as well as approximately 0.5 miles of generation tie line on private land. The CST power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for approximately 30 years and would connect to the electrical grid at the existing Jojoba Substation using a newly-constructed, three to four mile, 500 kilovolt tie-line. Four alternatives are considered in detail in this draft EIS: the No Action Alternative, the proposed action, the Reduced Water Use Alternative (Alternative A), and the Reduced Footprint Alternative (Alternative B). An optional component, a brine concentrator, is considered as an additional element that could be added to the action alternatives that would utilize a wet-cooling system (the proposed action and Alternative B). Under the proposed action, as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells would be needed to meet the water supply requirements of the SSEP at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy) for the 375-MW project in an average year. A well field would be developed 1.2 miles east of the power plant area to supply water for the SSEP during the construction and operation phases. The cooling system for heat rejection from the steam cycle would consist of a surface condenser, circulating water system, and a wet-cooling tower. Water for cooling tower make-up, process water make-up, and other industrial uses would be supplied from the groundwater wells. Under Alternative A, the SSEP would be constructed with dry-cooling technology rather than the wet cooling considered under the proposed action. Alternative A would require approximately 116 to 151 afy for the 375-MW project, which is approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Dry cooling would produce approximately nine percent less energy than the proposed action from the same size solar field. Under Alternative B, the SSEP would consist of two concentrated solar electricity-generating facilities, each with an expected net output of 125 MW (for a total of 250 MW). This design would allow for a reduced project footprint and avoidance of wildlife habitat features. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb drainages and floodplains with changes to stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Impacts to wildlife would include displacement and habitat degradation, loss of habitat connectivity from fragmentation and road barrier effects, increased risk of exposure to potentially toxic constituents in evaporation ponds, and loss of habitat. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and opportunities due to vegetation removal, introduction of human-made facilities to the landscape, noise, increased traffic, and competition from other non-recreation activities. The primitive recreational experience and setting in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Removal of vegetation and fencing of the proposed SSEP facility would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Nine historic properties (sites) are present in the 8,646-acre cultural resources analysis area. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100108, 509 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-20 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA+.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA+.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA . [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA . AN - 756826545; 14203-100108_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an electrical generating facility, using concentrated solar thermal (CST) power on 3,700 acres of federally managed lands south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). Land ownership is almost exclusively Bureau of Land Management, with approximately 1.5 miles of road improvements proposed on private and state lands at the western edge of the project area, as well as approximately 0.5 miles of generation tie line on private land. The CST power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for approximately 30 years and would connect to the electrical grid at the existing Jojoba Substation using a newly-constructed, three to four mile, 500 kilovolt tie-line. Four alternatives are considered in detail in this draft EIS: the No Action Alternative, the proposed action, the Reduced Water Use Alternative (Alternative A), and the Reduced Footprint Alternative (Alternative B). An optional component, a brine concentrator, is considered as an additional element that could be added to the action alternatives that would utilize a wet-cooling system (the proposed action and Alternative B). Under the proposed action, as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells would be needed to meet the water supply requirements of the SSEP at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy) for the 375-MW project in an average year. A well field would be developed 1.2 miles east of the power plant area to supply water for the SSEP during the construction and operation phases. The cooling system for heat rejection from the steam cycle would consist of a surface condenser, circulating water system, and a wet-cooling tower. Water for cooling tower make-up, process water make-up, and other industrial uses would be supplied from the groundwater wells. Under Alternative A, the SSEP would be constructed with dry-cooling technology rather than the wet cooling considered under the proposed action. Alternative A would require approximately 116 to 151 afy for the 375-MW project, which is approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Dry cooling would produce approximately nine percent less energy than the proposed action from the same size solar field. Under Alternative B, the SSEP would consist of two concentrated solar electricity-generating facilities, each with an expected net output of 125 MW (for a total of 250 MW). This design would allow for a reduced project footprint and avoidance of wildlife habitat features. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb drainages and floodplains with changes to stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Impacts to wildlife would include displacement and habitat degradation, loss of habitat connectivity from fragmentation and road barrier effects, increased risk of exposure to potentially toxic constituents in evaporation ponds, and loss of habitat. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and opportunities due to vegetation removal, introduction of human-made facilities to the landscape, noise, increased traffic, and competition from other non-recreation activities. The primitive recreational experience and setting in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Removal of vegetation and fencing of the proposed SSEP facility would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Nine historic properties (sites) are present in the 8,646-acre cultural resources analysis area. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100108, 509 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-20 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA+.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA+.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16378893; 14202 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a 8,230-acre site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 is 275 MW described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require approximately 2,320 acres. The renewable energy from Phase I would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a 2.0-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Approximately 739 feet of this connecting transmission line is outside of the project site. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require approximately 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers. The additional 575 MW generated in Phase II would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. This upgrade is described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. In addition to the proposed project, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The two build alternatives include a Reduced Acreage Alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and the Avoidance of Donated and Acquired Lands Alternative (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers) that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal Land and Water Conservation Funds. The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100107, 1,455 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-13 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SONORAN SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA . AN - 16369931; 14203 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an electrical generating facility, using concentrated solar thermal (CST) power on 3,700 acres of federally managed lands south of the town of Buckeye in Maricopa County, Arizona, is proposed. Boulevard Associates, LLC has submitted a right-of-way application for the Sonoran Solar Energy Project (SSEP) in an area southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area in the Little Rainbow Valley, east of State Route 85. The project would include power blocks, solar fields, evaporation ponds, heat transfer fluid land treatment areas, and required linear facilities (access roads, generation tie line, gas lines, and well field and water pipelines). Land ownership is almost exclusively Bureau of Land Management, with approximately 1.5 miles of road improvements proposed on private and state lands at the western edge of the project area, as well as approximately 0.5 miles of generation tie line on private land. The CST power plant would provide up to 375 megawatts of parabolic trough solar thermal electrical generation with options for natural gas backup and/or thermal storage capabilities. The facility is expected to operate for approximately 30 years and would connect to the electrical grid at the existing Jojoba Substation using a newly-constructed, three to four mile, 500 kilovolt tie-line. Four alternatives are considered in detail in this draft EIS: the No Action Alternative, the proposed action, the Reduced Water Use Alternative (Alternative A), and the Reduced Footprint Alternative (Alternative B). An optional component, a brine concentrator, is considered as an additional element that could be added to the action alternatives that would utilize a wet-cooling system (the proposed action and Alternative B). Under the proposed action, as many as four high-capacity groundwater production wells would be needed to meet the water supply requirements of the SSEP at full build-out, with an estimated total water demand of 2,305 to 3,003 acre-feet per year (afy) for the 375-MW project in an average year. A well field would be developed 1.2 miles east of the power plant area to supply water for the SSEP during the construction and operation phases. The cooling system for heat rejection from the steam cycle would consist of a surface condenser, circulating water system, and a wet-cooling tower. Water for cooling tower make-up, process water make-up, and other industrial uses would be supplied from the groundwater wells. Under Alternative A, the SSEP would be constructed with dry-cooling technology rather than the wet cooling considered under the proposed action. Alternative A would require approximately 116 to 151 afy for the 375-MW project, which is approximately 95 percent less water than would be used under the proposed action. Dry cooling would produce approximately nine percent less energy than the proposed action from the same size solar field. Under Alternative B, the SSEP would consist of two concentrated solar electricity-generating facilities, each with an expected net output of 125 MW (for a total of 250 MW). This design would allow for a reduced project footprint and avoidance of wildlife habitat features. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb drainages and floodplains with changes to stormwater, flood, and surface-water flows in and around the solar field. Use of onsite wells would lower existing groundwater levels. Impacts to wildlife would include displacement and habitat degradation, loss of habitat connectivity from fragmentation and road barrier effects, increased risk of exposure to potentially toxic constituents in evaporation ponds, and loss of habitat. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would alter the recreational setting and opportunities due to vegetation removal, introduction of human-made facilities to the landscape, noise, increased traffic, and competition from other non-recreation activities. The primitive recreational experience and setting in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, Sierra Estrella Wilderness, and the Buckeye Hills Recreation Area would be impacted. Removal of vegetation and fencing of the proposed SSEP facility would prevent grazing and foraging by livestock and loss of animal unit months on grazing allotments. Nine historic properties (sites) are present in the 8,646-acre cultural resources analysis area. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100108, 509 pages, March 30, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-20 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Grazing KW - Industrial Water KW - Land Use KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA+.&rft.title=SONORAN+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA+.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130413; 14205-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130387; 14205-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130376; 14205-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130363; 14205-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130187; 14205-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130170; 14205-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130156; 14205-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130127; 14205-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130113; 14205-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130105; 14205-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129810; 14205-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129788; 14205-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128350; 14205-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128345; 14205-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128340; 14205-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128334; 14205-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128324; 14205-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128313; 14205-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 19] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128302; 14205-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. Californias two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP), operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern Delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with Reclamation and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4, which is also the preferred alternative, represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds). Construction and operation would impact existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new power lines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would permanently convert 22 acres of Important Farmland. Closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and an additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities would cause short-term loss of recreation areas and activities. The project could impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0216D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100110, Draft EIS--Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Appendices), Final EIS--Volume 4 (Project Updates and Responses to Comments); CD-ROM, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-13 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NARROWS PROJECT, SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NARROWS PROJECT, SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756827028; 14204-100109_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Narrows Dam and reservoir, a non-federal supplemental water supply project, on Gooseberry Creek in Sanpete County, Utah is proposed. The demand for municipal water exceeds the available supply and water for agricultural irrigation is not adequate at the time when it is needed in late summer. This supplemental draft EIS updates information and analyses contained in the draft EIS published in March 1998. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under the proposed action, a dam and reservoir would be constructed on Gooseberry Creek, and water would be diverted through the existing Narrows Tunnel to Cottonwood Creek. Three pipelines would be constructed to deliver water to the existing distribution systems located near Fairview, Utah. Recreation facilities would be developed at the reservoir for boating, camping, and picnicking, and a 2,500 acre-foot minimum pool for fish habitat would be provided. This alternative would develop 4,281 acre-feet of water for irrigation that would be used on 15,420 acres of land to supplement existing irrigation supplies. The project water and existing water supplies would be used primarily for the production of alfalfa and hay to support beef and dairy enterprises. In addition, 855 acre-feet per year would be used in the communities of Fairview, Spring City, and Moroni for the irrigation of lawns and gardens. The reservoir would have a total capacity of 17,000 acre-feet and a water surface area of 604 acres. The reservoir would maintain a minimum pool of 2,500 acre-feet that would not be drawn down. A Mid-Sized Reservoir Alternative, which would have a maximum capacity of 12,450 acre-feet, is also considered in this supplemental draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would provide an irrigation and municipal and industrial supply source for water users in northern Sanpete County. The project would have the added benefit of providing improved and additional recreation and fishing opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would permanently alter use on 786 acres of land currently functioning as rangeland and wildlife habitat. The reservoir would inundate 100 acres of wetlands, one mile of stream fishery in upper Gooseberry Creek, and 4.3 miles of Yellowstone cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat in the Creek tributaries. Traffic volume would increase by 19 percent in the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and Small Reclamation Projects Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0139D, Volume 22, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100109, 371 pages, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gooseberry Creek KW - Utah KW - Small Reclamation Projects Act, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NARROWS PROJECT, SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NARROWS PROJECT, SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826445; 14204-100109_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Narrows Dam and reservoir, a non-federal supplemental water supply project, on Gooseberry Creek in Sanpete County, Utah is proposed. The demand for municipal water exceeds the available supply and water for agricultural irrigation is not adequate at the time when it is needed in late summer. This supplemental draft EIS updates information and analyses contained in the draft EIS published in March 1998. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under the proposed action, a dam and reservoir would be constructed on Gooseberry Creek, and water would be diverted through the existing Narrows Tunnel to Cottonwood Creek. Three pipelines would be constructed to deliver water to the existing distribution systems located near Fairview, Utah. Recreation facilities would be developed at the reservoir for boating, camping, and picnicking, and a 2,500 acre-foot minimum pool for fish habitat would be provided. This alternative would develop 4,281 acre-feet of water for irrigation that would be used on 15,420 acres of land to supplement existing irrigation supplies. The project water and existing water supplies would be used primarily for the production of alfalfa and hay to support beef and dairy enterprises. In addition, 855 acre-feet per year would be used in the communities of Fairview, Spring City, and Moroni for the irrigation of lawns and gardens. The reservoir would have a total capacity of 17,000 acre-feet and a water surface area of 604 acres. The reservoir would maintain a minimum pool of 2,500 acre-feet that would not be drawn down. A Mid-Sized Reservoir Alternative, which would have a maximum capacity of 12,450 acre-feet, is also considered in this supplemental draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would provide an irrigation and municipal and industrial supply source for water users in northern Sanpete County. The project would have the added benefit of providing improved and additional recreation and fishing opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would permanently alter use on 786 acres of land currently functioning as rangeland and wildlife habitat. The reservoir would inundate 100 acres of wetlands, one mile of stream fishery in upper Gooseberry Creek, and 4.3 miles of Yellowstone cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat in the Creek tributaries. Traffic volume would increase by 19 percent in the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and Small Reclamation Projects Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0139D, Volume 22, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100109, 371 pages, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gooseberry Creek KW - Utah KW - Small Reclamation Projects Act, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NARROWS PROJECT, SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 754908653; 14204 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Narrows Dam and reservoir, a non-federal supplemental water supply project, on Gooseberry Creek in Sanpete County, Utah is proposed. The demand for municipal water exceeds the available supply and water for agricultural irrigation is not adequate at the time when it is needed in late summer. This supplemental draft EIS updates information and analyses contained in the draft EIS published in March 1998. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under the proposed action, a dam and reservoir would be constructed on Gooseberry Creek, and water would be diverted through the existing Narrows Tunnel to Cottonwood Creek. Three pipelines would be constructed to deliver water to the existing distribution systems located near Fairview, Utah. Recreation facilities would be developed at the reservoir for boating, camping, and picnicking, and a 2,500 acre-foot minimum pool for fish habitat would be provided. This alternative would develop 4,281 acre-feet of water for irrigation that would be used on 15,420 acres of land to supplement existing irrigation supplies. The project water and existing water supplies would be used primarily for the production of alfalfa and hay to support beef and dairy enterprises. In addition, 855 acre-feet per year would be used in the communities of Fairview, Spring City, and Moroni for the irrigation of lawns and gardens. The reservoir would have a total capacity of 17,000 acre-feet and a water surface area of 604 acres. The reservoir would maintain a minimum pool of 2,500 acre-feet that would not be drawn down. A Mid-Sized Reservoir Alternative, which would have a maximum capacity of 12,450 acre-feet, is also considered in this supplemental draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would provide an irrigation and municipal and industrial supply source for water users in northern Sanpete County. The project would have the added benefit of providing improved and additional recreation and fishing opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would permanently alter use on 786 acres of land currently functioning as rangeland and wildlife habitat. The reservoir would inundate 100 acres of wetlands, one mile of stream fishery in upper Gooseberry Creek, and 4.3 miles of Yellowstone cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat in the Creek tributaries. Traffic volume would increase by 19 percent in the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and Small Reclamation Projects Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0139D, Volume 22, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100109, 371 pages, March 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gooseberry Creek KW - Utah KW - Small Reclamation Projects Act, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827150; 14201-100106_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827140; 14201-100106_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827100; 14201-100106_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827094; 14201-100106_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827088; 14201-100106_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827002; 14201-100106_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826997; 14201-100106_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826969; 14201-100106_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826689; 14201-100106_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANITE MOUNTAIN WIND ENERGY PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16384937; 14201 AB - PURPOSE: The development ofNBaNB58.8 to 84 megawatt (MW) wind energy project on just under 100 acres of federal and private land in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Granite Mountain Wind, LLC (the Applicant), a wholly owned subsidiary of Renewable Energy Systems,NBNorth America, is proposing to developNBthe project on a site in the Mojave Desert, six miles east of the Town of Apple Valley and a similar distance northwest of the community of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would be located on the central ridgeline of the Granite Mountains within approximately 2,086 acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 670 acres of privately owned land under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino (the County). The project would be comprised of a main access road from the east (off Spinel Road) up to the ridge, internal access roads on the ridge, 28 Siemens or similar wind turbines that stand up to 428 feet from ground level to the tip of the blade, new transmission and fiber optic lines, and two substations, one within the project area and one at the other end of the utility grid interconnect point to Southern California Edisons (SCE) Pisgah-Lugo 1 substation near where the SCE line crosses State Route 247 north of Lucerne Valley. The proposed project would also include a maintenance building, two meteorological towers, a temporary office, and temporary construction and staging areas. An amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan would designate the proposed site as suitable for wind energy generation and allow for siting of one mile of the new 3.2-to 4.7-mile transmission line from the project site to be located outside of a utility corridor. The Granite Mountain Wind Project would have an expected operating lifetime of 25 to 30 years, after which it may no longer be cost effective to continue operation. At or near that time, the applicant would determine if the operational life of the project could be extended, the project should be re-powered with new wind turbines, or the project should be decommissioned. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are evaluated in this draft EIS which tiers to the 2005 programmatic EIS on wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the Applicant a right-of-way (ROW) for their project as proposed and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind energy development, and the County would grant the applicant a permit for project development on private lands. Under Alternative 2 the Applicant's applications would be denied by the BLM and the County but the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site suitable for wind energy development. Alternative 3 would deny the Applicant's applications and the CDCA Plan would be amended to declare the site unsuitable for wind energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would promote environmentally responsible renewable energy development on public lands and provide needed additional electrical generation to meet energy demands for local and regional customers in Southern California. The proposed project would create permanent jobs and tax revenue for the local, regional, and state economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility could be at risk for seismically-related ground failure and construction may result in substantial soil erosion. Access routes would cross Mojave creosote bush scrub and Mojave mixed woody scrub communities. Wind turbines would be visible from key observation points in the vicinity and would impact visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS on wind energy development, see 05-0474F, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100106, Volume 1--381 pages, Volume 2--1,210 pages, March 26, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRANITE+MOUNTAIN+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 756827085; 14198-100103_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 28 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receivers; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals (hydrostatic testing or dust abatement), and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 100103, 341 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235D KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827080; 14197-100102_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, is seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The project would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity. With this technology, arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperature (750 degrees Fahrenheit) as it circulates through the receiver tubes and is then piped through heat exchangers where it releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam. The steam is then fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced. The PSPP facility would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by propane delivered by truck and stored in 18,000-gallon above ground tanks. The project would use dry-cooled technology and would have limited water uses including solar mirror washing, feedwater makeup, fire water supply, cooling water for auxiliary equipment, heat rejection, and dust control. Average total water requirements would be 300 acre feet per year and would be met by use of groundwater pumped from one of two wells on the site. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates two alternatives determined to be reasonable and feasible, and a No Action Alternative. The Reconfigured Alternative would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would eliminate the proposed project's significant impacts to a wildlife movement corridor. It would not avoid the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, sand dune habitat, and Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW (75 percent as large as the proposed project) and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy, while creating additional construction and operations employment. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the entire 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb a total of about 2,970 acres. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated pursuant to the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Impacts to Mojave fringe-toed lizard, a sand-dependent species, are also significant and immitigable unless the project is altered to avoid habitat. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several viewing areas in the project vicinity, Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100102, 1,432 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-18 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 756827075; 14198-100103_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 28 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receivers; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals (hydrostatic testing or dust abatement), and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 100103, 341 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235D KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER RIGHT OF WAY, CROOK AND DESCHUTES COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER RIGHT OF WAY, CROOK AND DESCHUTES COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 756826949; 14195-100100_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the Bureau of Land Managements (BLM) authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate: a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide permanent access road; a pole-mounted 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line (the transmission line would be constructed using single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals; the transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road); a 14.4 kV electrical utility line under-hung on the transmission line pole structures described above; and, a fiber optic communication line that is also located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, even those project facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions since they can be prevented by BLM decision-making. These non-federal connected actions are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW and are therefore also considered. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This draft EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Alternative 1 would include grating a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line, and consider the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil (82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities) and temporary and permanent vegetative loss would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13212 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100100, 259 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-P060-2009-0064-EIS KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+CROOK+AND+DESCHUTES+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+CROOK+AND+DESCHUTES+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826701; 14197-100102_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, is seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The project would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity. With this technology, arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperature (750 degrees Fahrenheit) as it circulates through the receiver tubes and is then piped through heat exchangers where it releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam. The steam is then fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced. The PSPP facility would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by propane delivered by truck and stored in 18,000-gallon above ground tanks. The project would use dry-cooled technology and would have limited water uses including solar mirror washing, feedwater makeup, fire water supply, cooling water for auxiliary equipment, heat rejection, and dust control. Average total water requirements would be 300 acre feet per year and would be met by use of groundwater pumped from one of two wells on the site. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates two alternatives determined to be reasonable and feasible, and a No Action Alternative. The Reconfigured Alternative would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would eliminate the proposed project's significant impacts to a wildlife movement corridor. It would not avoid the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, sand dune habitat, and Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW (75 percent as large as the proposed project) and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy, while creating additional construction and operations employment. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the entire 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb a total of about 2,970 acres. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated pursuant to the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Impacts to Mojave fringe-toed lizard, a sand-dependent species, are also significant and immitigable unless the project is altered to avoid habitat. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several viewing areas in the project vicinity, Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100102, 1,432 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-18 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826661; 14197-100102_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, is seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The project would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity. With this technology, arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperature (750 degrees Fahrenheit) as it circulates through the receiver tubes and is then piped through heat exchangers where it releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam. The steam is then fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced. The PSPP facility would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by propane delivered by truck and stored in 18,000-gallon above ground tanks. The project would use dry-cooled technology and would have limited water uses including solar mirror washing, feedwater makeup, fire water supply, cooling water for auxiliary equipment, heat rejection, and dust control. Average total water requirements would be 300 acre feet per year and would be met by use of groundwater pumped from one of two wells on the site. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates two alternatives determined to be reasonable and feasible, and a No Action Alternative. The Reconfigured Alternative would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would eliminate the proposed project's significant impacts to a wildlife movement corridor. It would not avoid the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, sand dune habitat, and Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW (75 percent as large as the proposed project) and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy, while creating additional construction and operations employment. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the entire 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb a total of about 2,970 acres. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated pursuant to the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Impacts to Mojave fringe-toed lizard, a sand-dependent species, are also significant and immitigable unless the project is altered to avoid habitat. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several viewing areas in the project vicinity, Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100102, 1,432 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-18 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826556; 14197-100102_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, is seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The project would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity. With this technology, arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperature (750 degrees Fahrenheit) as it circulates through the receiver tubes and is then piped through heat exchangers where it releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam. The steam is then fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced. The PSPP facility would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by propane delivered by truck and stored in 18,000-gallon above ground tanks. The project would use dry-cooled technology and would have limited water uses including solar mirror washing, feedwater makeup, fire water supply, cooling water for auxiliary equipment, heat rejection, and dust control. Average total water requirements would be 300 acre feet per year and would be met by use of groundwater pumped from one of two wells on the site. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates two alternatives determined to be reasonable and feasible, and a No Action Alternative. The Reconfigured Alternative would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would eliminate the proposed project's significant impacts to a wildlife movement corridor. It would not avoid the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, sand dune habitat, and Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW (75 percent as large as the proposed project) and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy, while creating additional construction and operations employment. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the entire 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb a total of about 2,970 acres. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated pursuant to the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Impacts to Mojave fringe-toed lizard, a sand-dependent species, are also significant and immitigable unless the project is altered to avoid habitat. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several viewing areas in the project vicinity, Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100102, 1,432 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-18 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PALEN SOLAR POWER PLANT PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16384903; 14197 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility in an unincorporated area of eastern Riverside County, California is proposed. Palen Solar I, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Solar Millenium, LLC, is seeking a right-of-way grant for 5,200 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located just north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and 10 miles east of the town of Desert Center. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The Palen Solar Power Project (PSPP) facility would consist of two adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 500 MW. The project would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity. With this technology, arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperature (750 degrees Fahrenheit) as it circulates through the receiver tubes and is then piped through heat exchangers where it releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam. The steam is then fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced. The PSPP facility would be connected to the Southern California Edison transmission system at the planned Red Bluff substation 10 miles west of the PSPP site. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by propane delivered by truck and stored in 18,000-gallon above ground tanks. The project would use dry-cooled technology and would have limited water uses including solar mirror washing, feedwater makeup, fire water supply, cooling water for auxiliary equipment, heat rejection, and dust control. Average total water requirements would be 300 acre feet per year and would be met by use of groundwater pumped from one of two wells on the site. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates two alternatives determined to be reasonable and feasible, and a No Action Alternative. The Reconfigured Alternative would have the same generation capacity as the proposed project, but would eliminate the proposed project's significant impacts to a wildlife movement corridor. It would not avoid the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, sand dune habitat, and Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate 375 MW (75 percent as large as the proposed project) and would eliminate the significant impacts to the sand transport corridor, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and the primary desert dry wash wildlife corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would help California meet its renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals, and sustain and stimulate the economy by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable energy, while creating additional construction and operations employment. Project construction would require an average of 566 employees over the entire 39-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would disturb a total of about 2,970 acres. A portion of the project area is within a multi-species wildlife habitat management area designated pursuant to the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan with the specific role of providing connectivity for the desert tortoise across I-10. Impacts to Mojave fringe-toed lizard, a sand-dependent species, are also significant and immitigable unless the project is altered to avoid habitat. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several viewing areas in the project vicinity, Chuckwalla Valley, Palen McCoy Wilderness, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness, would occur. Visual impacts would be slightly greater under both the Reconfigured Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative as compared with the proposed project. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100102, 1,432 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-18 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PALEN+SOLAR+POWER+PLANT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER RIGHT OF WAY, CROOK AND DESCHUTES COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 16384420; 14195 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the Bureau of Land Managements (BLM) authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate: a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide permanent access road; a pole-mounted 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line (the transmission line would be constructed using single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals; the transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road); a 14.4 kV electrical utility line under-hung on the transmission line pole structures described above; and, a fiber optic communication line that is also located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, even those project facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions since they can be prevented by BLM decision-making. These non-federal connected actions are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW and are therefore also considered. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This draft EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Alternative 1 would include grating a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line, and consider the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil (82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities) and temporary and permanent vegetative loss would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13212 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100100, 259 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-P060-2009-0064-EIS KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+CROOK+AND+DESCHUTES+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+CROOK+AND+DESCHUTES+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 16372583; 14198 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 28 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receivers; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals (hydrostatic testing or dust abatement), and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 100103, 341 pages, March 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235D KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827064; 14249-100096_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for 214,930 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in Imperial County, California is proposed. Located in the southeast corner of California, the Imperial Sand Dunes are the largest mass of sand dunes in the state, extending for more than 40 miles in a band averaging 5 miles wide. Largely known as a favorite location for off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year, the dunes also offer scenery, opportunities for solitude, and a home to rare plants and animals. The dune system consists of three areas. The northernmost area is known as Mammoth Wash, an open area that allows OHV use and offers a more isolated experience. South of Mammoth Wash is the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area which was established in 1994 and is closed to all mechanized traffic. The largest and most heavily used area begins at Highway 78 and continues south to the international border. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to motorized recreation, allowable uses, resource protection, law enforcement, solid waste and hazardous materials management, and facilities management. Eight alternatives which vary by the allowed level of motorized use and extent of preservation of resources are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), management conditions prescribed in the 1987 RAMP would continue. Alternative 2 would perpetuate present management based on plan updates developed in 2003. Alternative 3 would emphasize preservation of resources through limited public use. Alternatives 4 through 6 would utilize a combination of natural processes and active management techniques for recreation and use management. Alternative 7 would emphasize consumer-driven uses and the widest array of uses, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, and enhanced recreational opportunities including motorized use. Alternative 8, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for management of each resource and resource use, and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. Under this alternative, all critical habitat for the endangered Peirson's milk-vetch would be closed to OHV recreation, 127,416 acres would be designated as open OHV management, 35,144 acres would be designated as closed, and 52,370 acres would be designated for limited use. Campgrounds south of Wash 25 and north of Wash 69, as well as the Dunebuggy Flats campground would be closed to camping but open to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RAMP would provide a variety of sustainable OHV and other recreational activities and maintain or improve the conditions of special status species and other unique natural and cultural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts of OHV recreation on wildlife species would continue, including destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water infiltration, increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife populations, and destruction of vegetation. Roadway development would disrupt water flow patterns that sustain habitat within microphyll woodlands and wash-dissected creosote scrub. Under the proposed plan, the majority of Mojave Desert tortoise habitat would be available for solar and wind development and adverse impacts to tortoise and potential habitat could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100096, Volume I--440 pages, Volume II: Appendices--314 pages and maps, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-16 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826677; 14249-100096_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for 214,930 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in Imperial County, California is proposed. Located in the southeast corner of California, the Imperial Sand Dunes are the largest mass of sand dunes in the state, extending for more than 40 miles in a band averaging 5 miles wide. Largely known as a favorite location for off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year, the dunes also offer scenery, opportunities for solitude, and a home to rare plants and animals. The dune system consists of three areas. The northernmost area is known as Mammoth Wash, an open area that allows OHV use and offers a more isolated experience. South of Mammoth Wash is the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area which was established in 1994 and is closed to all mechanized traffic. The largest and most heavily used area begins at Highway 78 and continues south to the international border. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to motorized recreation, allowable uses, resource protection, law enforcement, solid waste and hazardous materials management, and facilities management. Eight alternatives which vary by the allowed level of motorized use and extent of preservation of resources are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), management conditions prescribed in the 1987 RAMP would continue. Alternative 2 would perpetuate present management based on plan updates developed in 2003. Alternative 3 would emphasize preservation of resources through limited public use. Alternatives 4 through 6 would utilize a combination of natural processes and active management techniques for recreation and use management. Alternative 7 would emphasize consumer-driven uses and the widest array of uses, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, and enhanced recreational opportunities including motorized use. Alternative 8, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for management of each resource and resource use, and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. Under this alternative, all critical habitat for the endangered Peirson's milk-vetch would be closed to OHV recreation, 127,416 acres would be designated as open OHV management, 35,144 acres would be designated as closed, and 52,370 acres would be designated for limited use. Campgrounds south of Wash 25 and north of Wash 69, as well as the Dunebuggy Flats campground would be closed to camping but open to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RAMP would provide a variety of sustainable OHV and other recreational activities and maintain or improve the conditions of special status species and other unique natural and cultural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts of OHV recreation on wildlife species would continue, including destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water infiltration, increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife populations, and destruction of vegetation. Roadway development would disrupt water flow patterns that sustain habitat within microphyll woodlands and wash-dissected creosote scrub. Under the proposed plan, the majority of Mojave Desert tortoise habitat would be available for solar and wind development and adverse impacts to tortoise and potential habitat could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100096, Volume I--440 pages, Volume II: Appendices--314 pages and maps, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-16 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826492; 14249-100096_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for 214,930 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in Imperial County, California is proposed. Located in the southeast corner of California, the Imperial Sand Dunes are the largest mass of sand dunes in the state, extending for more than 40 miles in a band averaging 5 miles wide. Largely known as a favorite location for off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year, the dunes also offer scenery, opportunities for solitude, and a home to rare plants and animals. The dune system consists of three areas. The northernmost area is known as Mammoth Wash, an open area that allows OHV use and offers a more isolated experience. South of Mammoth Wash is the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area which was established in 1994 and is closed to all mechanized traffic. The largest and most heavily used area begins at Highway 78 and continues south to the international border. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to motorized recreation, allowable uses, resource protection, law enforcement, solid waste and hazardous materials management, and facilities management. Eight alternatives which vary by the allowed level of motorized use and extent of preservation of resources are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), management conditions prescribed in the 1987 RAMP would continue. Alternative 2 would perpetuate present management based on plan updates developed in 2003. Alternative 3 would emphasize preservation of resources through limited public use. Alternatives 4 through 6 would utilize a combination of natural processes and active management techniques for recreation and use management. Alternative 7 would emphasize consumer-driven uses and the widest array of uses, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, and enhanced recreational opportunities including motorized use. Alternative 8, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for management of each resource and resource use, and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. Under this alternative, all critical habitat for the endangered Peirson's milk-vetch would be closed to OHV recreation, 127,416 acres would be designated as open OHV management, 35,144 acres would be designated as closed, and 52,370 acres would be designated for limited use. Campgrounds south of Wash 25 and north of Wash 69, as well as the Dunebuggy Flats campground would be closed to camping but open to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RAMP would provide a variety of sustainable OHV and other recreational activities and maintain or improve the conditions of special status species and other unique natural and cultural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts of OHV recreation on wildlife species would continue, including destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water infiltration, increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife populations, and destruction of vegetation. Roadway development would disrupt water flow patterns that sustain habitat within microphyll woodlands and wash-dissected creosote scrub. Under the proposed plan, the majority of Mojave Desert tortoise habitat would be available for solar and wind development and adverse impacts to tortoise and potential habitat could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100096, Volume I--440 pages, Volume II: Appendices--314 pages and maps, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-16 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16374129; 14249 AB - PURPOSE: A Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for 214,930 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area in Imperial County, California is proposed. Located in the southeast corner of California, the Imperial Sand Dunes are the largest mass of sand dunes in the state, extending for more than 40 miles in a band averaging 5 miles wide. Largely known as a favorite location for off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year, the dunes also offer scenery, opportunities for solitude, and a home to rare plants and animals. The dune system consists of three areas. The northernmost area is known as Mammoth Wash, an open area that allows OHV use and offers a more isolated experience. South of Mammoth Wash is the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area which was established in 1994 and is closed to all mechanized traffic. The largest and most heavily used area begins at Highway 78 and continues south to the international border. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to motorized recreation, allowable uses, resource protection, law enforcement, solid waste and hazardous materials management, and facilities management. Eight alternatives which vary by the allowed level of motorized use and extent of preservation of resources are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), management conditions prescribed in the 1987 RAMP would continue. Alternative 2 would perpetuate present management based on plan updates developed in 2003. Alternative 3 would emphasize preservation of resources through limited public use. Alternatives 4 through 6 would utilize a combination of natural processes and active management techniques for recreation and use management. Alternative 7 would emphasize consumer-driven uses and the widest array of uses, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, and enhanced recreational opportunities including motorized use. Alternative 8, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for management of each resource and resource use, and provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. Under this alternative, all critical habitat for the endangered Peirson's milk-vetch would be closed to OHV recreation, 127,416 acres would be designated as open OHV management, 35,144 acres would be designated as closed, and 52,370 acres would be designated for limited use. Campgrounds south of Wash 25 and north of Wash 69, as well as the Dunebuggy Flats campground would be closed to camping but open to OHV use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RAMP would provide a variety of sustainable OHV and other recreational activities and maintain or improve the conditions of special status species and other unique natural and cultural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts of OHV recreation on wildlife species would continue, including destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water infiltration, increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife populations, and destruction of vegetation. Roadway development would disrupt water flow patterns that sustain habitat within microphyll woodlands and wash-dissected creosote scrub. Under the proposed plan, the majority of Mojave Desert tortoise habitat would be available for solar and wind development and adverse impacts to tortoise and potential habitat could occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100096, Volume I--440 pages, Volume II: Appendices--314 pages and maps, March 19, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-16 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827023; 14238-100085_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the BSPP within the plan, is also proposed. The Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. Alternatives developed and evaluated include five alternative sites, solar and renewable technologies, generation technologies using different fuels, conservation and demand-side management, and a Reduced Acreage Alternative. This draft EIS considers the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and two feasible action alternatives. The Reconfigured Alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 4,750 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow California utilities to increase the percentage of renewable resources in their energy portfolio and aid the utilities in reaching the California goal of 33 percent renewable energy for retail sellers by 2020. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 7,030 acres. Desert tortoises could be harmed during construction and could be entrapped within open trenches and pipes. An incidental take permit for golden eagle could be required. Potential impacts on users of the Blythe airport could include plumes from at least one air-cooled condenser, glare and flash of light from troughs, radio frequency interference, and the location of transmission line approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest runway. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resources as seen from several viewing areas would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100085, 1,327 pages, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827015; 14238-100085_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the BSPP within the plan, is also proposed. The Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. Alternatives developed and evaluated include five alternative sites, solar and renewable technologies, generation technologies using different fuels, conservation and demand-side management, and a Reduced Acreage Alternative. This draft EIS considers the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and two feasible action alternatives. The Reconfigured Alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 4,750 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow California utilities to increase the percentage of renewable resources in their energy portfolio and aid the utilities in reaching the California goal of 33 percent renewable energy for retail sellers by 2020. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 7,030 acres. Desert tortoises could be harmed during construction and could be entrapped within open trenches and pipes. An incidental take permit for golden eagle could be required. Potential impacts on users of the Blythe airport could include plumes from at least one air-cooled condenser, glare and flash of light from troughs, radio frequency interference, and the location of transmission line approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest runway. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resources as seen from several viewing areas would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100085, 1,327 pages, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826585; 14236-100083_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826577; 14238-100085_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the BSPP within the plan, is also proposed. The Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. Alternatives developed and evaluated include five alternative sites, solar and renewable technologies, generation technologies using different fuels, conservation and demand-side management, and a Reduced Acreage Alternative. This draft EIS considers the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and two feasible action alternatives. The Reconfigured Alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 4,750 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow California utilities to increase the percentage of renewable resources in their energy portfolio and aid the utilities in reaching the California goal of 33 percent renewable energy for retail sellers by 2020. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 7,030 acres. Desert tortoises could be harmed during construction and could be entrapped within open trenches and pipes. An incidental take permit for golden eagle could be required. Potential impacts on users of the Blythe airport could include plumes from at least one air-cooled condenser, glare and flash of light from troughs, radio frequency interference, and the location of transmission line approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest runway. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resources as seen from several viewing areas would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100085, 1,327 pages, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826531; 14238-100085_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the BSPP within the plan, is also proposed. The Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. Alternatives developed and evaluated include five alternative sites, solar and renewable technologies, generation technologies using different fuels, conservation and demand-side management, and a Reduced Acreage Alternative. This draft EIS considers the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and two feasible action alternatives. The Reconfigured Alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 4,750 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow California utilities to increase the percentage of renewable resources in their energy portfolio and aid the utilities in reaching the California goal of 33 percent renewable energy for retail sellers by 2020. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 7,030 acres. Desert tortoises could be harmed during construction and could be entrapped within open trenches and pipes. An incidental take permit for golden eagle could be required. Potential impacts on users of the Blythe airport could include plumes from at least one air-cooled condenser, glare and flash of light from troughs, radio frequency interference, and the location of transmission line approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest runway. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resources as seen from several viewing areas would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100085, 1,327 pages, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826466; 14236-100083_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826438; 14236-100083_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16384553; 14238 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the BSPP within the plan, is also proposed. The Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. Alternatives developed and evaluated include five alternative sites, solar and renewable technologies, generation technologies using different fuels, conservation and demand-side management, and a Reduced Acreage Alternative. This draft EIS considers the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and two feasible action alternatives. The Reconfigured Alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 4,750 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow California utilities to increase the percentage of renewable resources in their energy portfolio and aid the utilities in reaching the California goal of 33 percent renewable energy for retail sellers by 2020. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would disturb approximately 7,030 acres. Desert tortoises could be harmed during construction and could be entrapped within open trenches and pipes. An incidental take permit for golden eagle could be required. Potential impacts on users of the Blythe airport could include plumes from at least one air-cooled condenser, glare and flash of light from troughs, radio frequency interference, and the location of transmission line approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest runway. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resources as seen from several viewing areas would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100085, 1,327 pages, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Land Use KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16373678; 14236 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would help to reach Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100083, 612 pages and maps, March 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-10-10 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756827114; 14226-100072_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A range of actions for the management of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for the next 10 to 15 years at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (the Seashore) on the coast of North Carolina are proposed. Cape Hatteras is the nations first national seashore and consists of more than 30,000 acres distributed along 68 miles of shoreline. It serves as a popular recreation destination with more than 2.1 million visitors in 2008, an 8-fold increase in visitation since 1955. Seashore visitors participate in beach recreation, fishing, hiking, hunting, motorized boating, non-motorized boating, nature study, photography, ORV use (beach driving), shellfishing, sightseeing, water sports, and wildlife viewing. The Seashore is home to important habitats created by the Seashores dynamic environmental processes, including habitats for several federally-listed species including the piping plover and three species of sea turtles. ORV use at the Seashore has historically been managed since the 1970s through various draft or proposed plans, though none were ever finalized or published as a special regulation. Current management practices at the Seashore allow ORV users to drive on the beach seaward of the primary dune line, with a 10-meter backshore area seaward of the primary dune line protected seasonally. Drivers must use designated ramps to cross between the beach and NC-12 that runs behind the primary dune line. Two no-action alternatives (A and B) and four action alternatives (C, D, E and F) are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A would manage ORV use and access based on the interim protected species management strategy issued in 2006 that provides direction on the closures and buffers for federally listed species. There would be no restriction on night driving or carrying capacity and an ORV permit would not be required. Seasonal ORV closures would be limited to the village beaches and the entire Seashore would be a potential ORV route. Alternative B would manage ORV use in the same manner, except as modified by the consent decree which has been in effect since 2008. Monitoring at key nesting areas and larger, non-discretionary resource protection buffers would result in earlier, larger, and longer-lasting ORV and pedestrian closures than Alternative A. Alternative B would also prohibit night driving from May 1 to September 15 and would allow night driving with a permit from September 16 to November 15. No carrying capacity would be established or ORV use permit required under Alternative B, except for the night-driving permit. Under Alternative C, visitors would be provided with a degree of predictability regarding areas available for ORV use, as well as vehicle-free areas, based largely on seasonal resource and visitor use characteristics. Both seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be established and species management areas (SMAs) and village beaches would be closed to ORV use from March 14 through October 14. Pedestrians would be able to access some SMAs depending upon specific shorebird breeding activity. Most of the seasonal ORV areas would be open from October 15 through March 14. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be established using a maximum number of vehicles per mile of beach area. Under Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, restrictions would be applied to larger areas over longer periods to minimize changes in designated ORV and non-ORV areas over the course of the year. Year-round non-ORV areas would include all of the SMAs and village beaches. SMAs would be closed to pedestrian use during the breeding season. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be addressed by the use of vehicle stacking limits (one vehicle deep). Alternative E would provide for additional flexibility in access for both ORV and pedestrian users, including allowing some level of overnight vehicle use at selected points and spits. Additional controls or restrictions would be in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. Alternative F, which is the preferred alternative, would provide visitors with a wide variety of access opportunities for both ORV and pedestrian users. After shorebird breeding activity is concluded, some SMAs would re-open to ORV use earlier and for a longer time than under the other action alternatives. Two pedestrian access trails and improvements and additions to the interdunal road system would be constructed. Hatteras Inlet Spit and North Ocracoke Spit would be non-ORV areas year-round, with interdunal roads that allow access to the general area, but not the shoreline. SMAs would be closed to ORV use from March 15 through July 31, except South Point and Cape Point would have initial ORV access corridors and Bodie Island Spit would have an initial pedestrian access corridor at the start of the breeding season, with increased species monitoring in these areas. Village beach closures would vary with the northern beaches closed to ORV use from May 15 through September 15 and southern beaches closed from March 1 through November 30. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from one hour after sunset until after turtle patrol has checked the beaches in the morning. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Careful management of ORV use and access would protect natural and cultural resources, provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts among various users and promoting safety, and bring the Seashore into compliance with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 respecting ORV use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wetlands and federally listed animal and plant species would remain susceptible to direct damage from ORV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11644, Executive Order 11989, and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100072, 810 pages, March 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cape Hatteras National Seashore KW - North Carolina KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826697; 14226-100072_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A range of actions for the management of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for the next 10 to 15 years at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (the Seashore) on the coast of North Carolina are proposed. Cape Hatteras is the nations first national seashore and consists of more than 30,000 acres distributed along 68 miles of shoreline. It serves as a popular recreation destination with more than 2.1 million visitors in 2008, an 8-fold increase in visitation since 1955. Seashore visitors participate in beach recreation, fishing, hiking, hunting, motorized boating, non-motorized boating, nature study, photography, ORV use (beach driving), shellfishing, sightseeing, water sports, and wildlife viewing. The Seashore is home to important habitats created by the Seashores dynamic environmental processes, including habitats for several federally-listed species including the piping plover and three species of sea turtles. ORV use at the Seashore has historically been managed since the 1970s through various draft or proposed plans, though none were ever finalized or published as a special regulation. Current management practices at the Seashore allow ORV users to drive on the beach seaward of the primary dune line, with a 10-meter backshore area seaward of the primary dune line protected seasonally. Drivers must use designated ramps to cross between the beach and NC-12 that runs behind the primary dune line. Two no-action alternatives (A and B) and four action alternatives (C, D, E and F) are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A would manage ORV use and access based on the interim protected species management strategy issued in 2006 that provides direction on the closures and buffers for federally listed species. There would be no restriction on night driving or carrying capacity and an ORV permit would not be required. Seasonal ORV closures would be limited to the village beaches and the entire Seashore would be a potential ORV route. Alternative B would manage ORV use in the same manner, except as modified by the consent decree which has been in effect since 2008. Monitoring at key nesting areas and larger, non-discretionary resource protection buffers would result in earlier, larger, and longer-lasting ORV and pedestrian closures than Alternative A. Alternative B would also prohibit night driving from May 1 to September 15 and would allow night driving with a permit from September 16 to November 15. No carrying capacity would be established or ORV use permit required under Alternative B, except for the night-driving permit. Under Alternative C, visitors would be provided with a degree of predictability regarding areas available for ORV use, as well as vehicle-free areas, based largely on seasonal resource and visitor use characteristics. Both seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be established and species management areas (SMAs) and village beaches would be closed to ORV use from March 14 through October 14. Pedestrians would be able to access some SMAs depending upon specific shorebird breeding activity. Most of the seasonal ORV areas would be open from October 15 through March 14. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be established using a maximum number of vehicles per mile of beach area. Under Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, restrictions would be applied to larger areas over longer periods to minimize changes in designated ORV and non-ORV areas over the course of the year. Year-round non-ORV areas would include all of the SMAs and village beaches. SMAs would be closed to pedestrian use during the breeding season. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be addressed by the use of vehicle stacking limits (one vehicle deep). Alternative E would provide for additional flexibility in access for both ORV and pedestrian users, including allowing some level of overnight vehicle use at selected points and spits. Additional controls or restrictions would be in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. Alternative F, which is the preferred alternative, would provide visitors with a wide variety of access opportunities for both ORV and pedestrian users. After shorebird breeding activity is concluded, some SMAs would re-open to ORV use earlier and for a longer time than under the other action alternatives. Two pedestrian access trails and improvements and additions to the interdunal road system would be constructed. Hatteras Inlet Spit and North Ocracoke Spit would be non-ORV areas year-round, with interdunal roads that allow access to the general area, but not the shoreline. SMAs would be closed to ORV use from March 15 through July 31, except South Point and Cape Point would have initial ORV access corridors and Bodie Island Spit would have an initial pedestrian access corridor at the start of the breeding season, with increased species monitoring in these areas. Village beach closures would vary with the northern beaches closed to ORV use from May 15 through September 15 and southern beaches closed from March 1 through November 30. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from one hour after sunset until after turtle patrol has checked the beaches in the morning. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Careful management of ORV use and access would protect natural and cultural resources, provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts among various users and promoting safety, and bring the Seashore into compliance with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 respecting ORV use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wetlands and federally listed animal and plant species would remain susceptible to direct damage from ORV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11644, Executive Order 11989, and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100072, 810 pages, March 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cape Hatteras National Seashore KW - North Carolina KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826692; 14226-100072_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A range of actions for the management of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for the next 10 to 15 years at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (the Seashore) on the coast of North Carolina are proposed. Cape Hatteras is the nations first national seashore and consists of more than 30,000 acres distributed along 68 miles of shoreline. It serves as a popular recreation destination with more than 2.1 million visitors in 2008, an 8-fold increase in visitation since 1955. Seashore visitors participate in beach recreation, fishing, hiking, hunting, motorized boating, non-motorized boating, nature study, photography, ORV use (beach driving), shellfishing, sightseeing, water sports, and wildlife viewing. The Seashore is home to important habitats created by the Seashores dynamic environmental processes, including habitats for several federally-listed species including the piping plover and three species of sea turtles. ORV use at the Seashore has historically been managed since the 1970s through various draft or proposed plans, though none were ever finalized or published as a special regulation. Current management practices at the Seashore allow ORV users to drive on the beach seaward of the primary dune line, with a 10-meter backshore area seaward of the primary dune line protected seasonally. Drivers must use designated ramps to cross between the beach and NC-12 that runs behind the primary dune line. Two no-action alternatives (A and B) and four action alternatives (C, D, E and F) are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A would manage ORV use and access based on the interim protected species management strategy issued in 2006 that provides direction on the closures and buffers for federally listed species. There would be no restriction on night driving or carrying capacity and an ORV permit would not be required. Seasonal ORV closures would be limited to the village beaches and the entire Seashore would be a potential ORV route. Alternative B would manage ORV use in the same manner, except as modified by the consent decree which has been in effect since 2008. Monitoring at key nesting areas and larger, non-discretionary resource protection buffers would result in earlier, larger, and longer-lasting ORV and pedestrian closures than Alternative A. Alternative B would also prohibit night driving from May 1 to September 15 and would allow night driving with a permit from September 16 to November 15. No carrying capacity would be established or ORV use permit required under Alternative B, except for the night-driving permit. Under Alternative C, visitors would be provided with a degree of predictability regarding areas available for ORV use, as well as vehicle-free areas, based largely on seasonal resource and visitor use characteristics. Both seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be established and species management areas (SMAs) and village beaches would be closed to ORV use from March 14 through October 14. Pedestrians would be able to access some SMAs depending upon specific shorebird breeding activity. Most of the seasonal ORV areas would be open from October 15 through March 14. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be established using a maximum number of vehicles per mile of beach area. Under Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, restrictions would be applied to larger areas over longer periods to minimize changes in designated ORV and non-ORV areas over the course of the year. Year-round non-ORV areas would include all of the SMAs and village beaches. SMAs would be closed to pedestrian use during the breeding season. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be addressed by the use of vehicle stacking limits (one vehicle deep). Alternative E would provide for additional flexibility in access for both ORV and pedestrian users, including allowing some level of overnight vehicle use at selected points and spits. Additional controls or restrictions would be in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. Alternative F, which is the preferred alternative, would provide visitors with a wide variety of access opportunities for both ORV and pedestrian users. After shorebird breeding activity is concluded, some SMAs would re-open to ORV use earlier and for a longer time than under the other action alternatives. Two pedestrian access trails and improvements and additions to the interdunal road system would be constructed. Hatteras Inlet Spit and North Ocracoke Spit would be non-ORV areas year-round, with interdunal roads that allow access to the general area, but not the shoreline. SMAs would be closed to ORV use from March 15 through July 31, except South Point and Cape Point would have initial ORV access corridors and Bodie Island Spit would have an initial pedestrian access corridor at the start of the breeding season, with increased species monitoring in these areas. Village beach closures would vary with the northern beaches closed to ORV use from May 15 through September 15 and southern beaches closed from March 1 through November 30. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from one hour after sunset until after turtle patrol has checked the beaches in the morning. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Careful management of ORV use and access would protect natural and cultural resources, provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts among various users and promoting safety, and bring the Seashore into compliance with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 respecting ORV use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wetlands and federally listed animal and plant species would remain susceptible to direct damage from ORV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11644, Executive Order 11989, and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100072, 810 pages, March 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cape Hatteras National Seashore KW - North Carolina KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826679; 14226-100072_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A range of actions for the management of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for the next 10 to 15 years at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (the Seashore) on the coast of North Carolina are proposed. Cape Hatteras is the nations first national seashore and consists of more than 30,000 acres distributed along 68 miles of shoreline. It serves as a popular recreation destination with more than 2.1 million visitors in 2008, an 8-fold increase in visitation since 1955. Seashore visitors participate in beach recreation, fishing, hiking, hunting, motorized boating, non-motorized boating, nature study, photography, ORV use (beach driving), shellfishing, sightseeing, water sports, and wildlife viewing. The Seashore is home to important habitats created by the Seashores dynamic environmental processes, including habitats for several federally-listed species including the piping plover and three species of sea turtles. ORV use at the Seashore has historically been managed since the 1970s through various draft or proposed plans, though none were ever finalized or published as a special regulation. Current management practices at the Seashore allow ORV users to drive on the beach seaward of the primary dune line, with a 10-meter backshore area seaward of the primary dune line protected seasonally. Drivers must use designated ramps to cross between the beach and NC-12 that runs behind the primary dune line. Two no-action alternatives (A and B) and four action alternatives (C, D, E and F) are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A would manage ORV use and access based on the interim protected species management strategy issued in 2006 that provides direction on the closures and buffers for federally listed species. There would be no restriction on night driving or carrying capacity and an ORV permit would not be required. Seasonal ORV closures would be limited to the village beaches and the entire Seashore would be a potential ORV route. Alternative B would manage ORV use in the same manner, except as modified by the consent decree which has been in effect since 2008. Monitoring at key nesting areas and larger, non-discretionary resource protection buffers would result in earlier, larger, and longer-lasting ORV and pedestrian closures than Alternative A. Alternative B would also prohibit night driving from May 1 to September 15 and would allow night driving with a permit from September 16 to November 15. No carrying capacity would be established or ORV use permit required under Alternative B, except for the night-driving permit. Under Alternative C, visitors would be provided with a degree of predictability regarding areas available for ORV use, as well as vehicle-free areas, based largely on seasonal resource and visitor use characteristics. Both seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be established and species management areas (SMAs) and village beaches would be closed to ORV use from March 14 through October 14. Pedestrians would be able to access some SMAs depending upon specific shorebird breeding activity. Most of the seasonal ORV areas would be open from October 15 through March 14. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be established using a maximum number of vehicles per mile of beach area. Under Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, restrictions would be applied to larger areas over longer periods to minimize changes in designated ORV and non-ORV areas over the course of the year. Year-round non-ORV areas would include all of the SMAs and village beaches. SMAs would be closed to pedestrian use during the breeding season. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be addressed by the use of vehicle stacking limits (one vehicle deep). Alternative E would provide for additional flexibility in access for both ORV and pedestrian users, including allowing some level of overnight vehicle use at selected points and spits. Additional controls or restrictions would be in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. Alternative F, which is the preferred alternative, would provide visitors with a wide variety of access opportunities for both ORV and pedestrian users. After shorebird breeding activity is concluded, some SMAs would re-open to ORV use earlier and for a longer time than under the other action alternatives. Two pedestrian access trails and improvements and additions to the interdunal road system would be constructed. Hatteras Inlet Spit and North Ocracoke Spit would be non-ORV areas year-round, with interdunal roads that allow access to the general area, but not the shoreline. SMAs would be closed to ORV use from March 15 through July 31, except South Point and Cape Point would have initial ORV access corridors and Bodie Island Spit would have an initial pedestrian access corridor at the start of the breeding season, with increased species monitoring in these areas. Village beach closures would vary with the northern beaches closed to ORV use from May 15 through September 15 and southern beaches closed from March 1 through November 30. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from one hour after sunset until after turtle patrol has checked the beaches in the morning. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Careful management of ORV use and access would protect natural and cultural resources, provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts among various users and promoting safety, and bring the Seashore into compliance with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 respecting ORV use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wetlands and federally listed animal and plant species would remain susceptible to direct damage from ORV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11644, Executive Order 11989, and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100072, 810 pages, March 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cape Hatteras National Seashore KW - North Carolina KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16383951; 14226 AB - PURPOSE: A range of actions for the management of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for the next 10 to 15 years at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (the Seashore) on the coast of North Carolina are proposed. Cape Hatteras is the nations first national seashore and consists of more than 30,000 acres distributed along 68 miles of shoreline. It serves as a popular recreation destination with more than 2.1 million visitors in 2008, an 8-fold increase in visitation since 1955. Seashore visitors participate in beach recreation, fishing, hiking, hunting, motorized boating, non-motorized boating, nature study, photography, ORV use (beach driving), shellfishing, sightseeing, water sports, and wildlife viewing. The Seashore is home to important habitats created by the Seashores dynamic environmental processes, including habitats for several federally-listed species including the piping plover and three species of sea turtles. ORV use at the Seashore has historically been managed since the 1970s through various draft or proposed plans, though none were ever finalized or published as a special regulation. Current management practices at the Seashore allow ORV users to drive on the beach seaward of the primary dune line, with a 10-meter backshore area seaward of the primary dune line protected seasonally. Drivers must use designated ramps to cross between the beach and NC-12 that runs behind the primary dune line. Two no-action alternatives (A and B) and four action alternatives (C, D, E and F) are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative A would manage ORV use and access based on the interim protected species management strategy issued in 2006 that provides direction on the closures and buffers for federally listed species. There would be no restriction on night driving or carrying capacity and an ORV permit would not be required. Seasonal ORV closures would be limited to the village beaches and the entire Seashore would be a potential ORV route. Alternative B would manage ORV use in the same manner, except as modified by the consent decree which has been in effect since 2008. Monitoring at key nesting areas and larger, non-discretionary resource protection buffers would result in earlier, larger, and longer-lasting ORV and pedestrian closures than Alternative A. Alternative B would also prohibit night driving from May 1 to September 15 and would allow night driving with a permit from September 16 to November 15. No carrying capacity would be established or ORV use permit required under Alternative B, except for the night-driving permit. Under Alternative C, visitors would be provided with a degree of predictability regarding areas available for ORV use, as well as vehicle-free areas, based largely on seasonal resource and visitor use characteristics. Both seasonal and year-round ORV routes would be established and species management areas (SMAs) and village beaches would be closed to ORV use from March 14 through October 14. Pedestrians would be able to access some SMAs depending upon specific shorebird breeding activity. Most of the seasonal ORV areas would be open from October 15 through March 14. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be established using a maximum number of vehicles per mile of beach area. Under Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, restrictions would be applied to larger areas over longer periods to minimize changes in designated ORV and non-ORV areas over the course of the year. Year-round non-ORV areas would include all of the SMAs and village beaches. SMAs would be closed to pedestrian use during the breeding season. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from May 1 to November 15 and an ORV carrying capacity would be addressed by the use of vehicle stacking limits (one vehicle deep). Alternative E would provide for additional flexibility in access for both ORV and pedestrian users, including allowing some level of overnight vehicle use at selected points and spits. Additional controls or restrictions would be in place to limit impacts on sensitive resources. Alternative F, which is the preferred alternative, would provide visitors with a wide variety of access opportunities for both ORV and pedestrian users. After shorebird breeding activity is concluded, some SMAs would re-open to ORV use earlier and for a longer time than under the other action alternatives. Two pedestrian access trails and improvements and additions to the interdunal road system would be constructed. Hatteras Inlet Spit and North Ocracoke Spit would be non-ORV areas year-round, with interdunal roads that allow access to the general area, but not the shoreline. SMAs would be closed to ORV use from March 15 through July 31, except South Point and Cape Point would have initial ORV access corridors and Bodie Island Spit would have an initial pedestrian access corridor at the start of the breeding season, with increased species monitoring in these areas. Village beach closures would vary with the northern beaches closed to ORV use from May 15 through September 15 and southern beaches closed from March 1 through November 30. Seasonal night-driving restrictions would be established from one hour after sunset until after turtle patrol has checked the beaches in the morning. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Careful management of ORV use and access would protect natural and cultural resources, provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts among various users and promoting safety, and bring the Seashore into compliance with Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 respecting ORV use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wetlands and federally listed animal and plant species would remain susceptible to direct damage from ORV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11644, Executive Order 11989, and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100072, 810 pages, March 5, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cape Hatteras National Seashore KW - North Carolina KW - Executive Order 11644, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11989, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=CAPE+HATTERAS+NATIONAL+SEASHORE+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Manteo, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). AN - 756826943; 14223-100069_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in the Hay Creek II tract adjacent to the Buckskin Mine, an operating surface coal mine in the Powder River Basin, in northeast Wyoming is proposed. Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. filed an application on March 24, 2006 to lease approximately 54 million tons of recoverable federal coal in a maintenance tract that can be mined by an active coal mine. The proposed tract is located northwest and immediately adjacent to existing coal leases for the Buckskin Mine, 12 miles north of Gillete in Campbell County and encompasses 419 surface acres; approximately 182 acres overlap the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Existing land uses on the proposed tract include rangeland livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, pastureland, dryland cropland, and coal bed natural gas development. Key issues identified during scoping include potential conflicts between existing and proposed oil and gas development, impacts to big game herds and hunting, impacts to sage-grouse and listed species, potential health impacts related to blasting, cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions on Powder River Basin, and site specific and cumulative impacts on air and water quality. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the coal lease application would be rejected and no new coal reserves would be offered for sale at this time. The existing leases at the Buckskin Mine would be developed according to the current approved mining plan. Rejection of the lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in that area in the future. Under the proposed action, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the 77.2 million tons of in-place federal coal reserves. Under Alternative 2, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration that could include all or part of the proposed tract and additional reserves within the BLM study area, as determined by the BLM. The BLM study area includes up to approximately 1,883 acres and 269.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves. No new life-of-mine facilities would be built under any of the alternatives; coal reserves would be mined as an extension of the existing mine. The potential additional federal revenue from the general analysis area would range from $69 to $241 million, depending on the alternative selected and the bonus price when the coal is leased. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the general analysis area would range from $91 to $300 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Lease issuance would allow the mine to maintain production rates and extend the life of the mine. Continued management of federal coal resources in the Powder River Basin would generate revenue that could be used to fund infrastructure and social projects in Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under both action alternatives, surface coal mining would permanently alter the topography of the proposed tract and reclaimed lands would be approximately 60 feet lower affecting microhabitats and habitat diversity. Surface mining would affect 478 acres of soil resources under the proposed action and up to 2,847 acres under Alternative 2. Moderately adverse impacts on air quality currently present at Buckskin Mine would continue for two up to six years. Mining would cause a long-term reduction in groundwater in aquifers beyond the final tract configuration as a result of seepage into and dewatering from excavations. 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: 100069, 641 pages, March 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-09 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils 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/756826943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.title=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). AN - 756826676; 14223-100069_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in the Hay Creek II tract adjacent to the Buckskin Mine, an operating surface coal mine in the Powder River Basin, in northeast Wyoming is proposed. Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. filed an application on March 24, 2006 to lease approximately 54 million tons of recoverable federal coal in a maintenance tract that can be mined by an active coal mine. The proposed tract is located northwest and immediately adjacent to existing coal leases for the Buckskin Mine, 12 miles north of Gillete in Campbell County and encompasses 419 surface acres; approximately 182 acres overlap the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Existing land uses on the proposed tract include rangeland livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, pastureland, dryland cropland, and coal bed natural gas development. Key issues identified during scoping include potential conflicts between existing and proposed oil and gas development, impacts to big game herds and hunting, impacts to sage-grouse and listed species, potential health impacts related to blasting, cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions on Powder River Basin, and site specific and cumulative impacts on air and water quality. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the coal lease application would be rejected and no new coal reserves would be offered for sale at this time. The existing leases at the Buckskin Mine would be developed according to the current approved mining plan. Rejection of the lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in that area in the future. Under the proposed action, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the 77.2 million tons of in-place federal coal reserves. Under Alternative 2, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration that could include all or part of the proposed tract and additional reserves within the BLM study area, as determined by the BLM. The BLM study area includes up to approximately 1,883 acres and 269.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves. No new life-of-mine facilities would be built under any of the alternatives; coal reserves would be mined as an extension of the existing mine. The potential additional federal revenue from the general analysis area would range from $69 to $241 million, depending on the alternative selected and the bonus price when the coal is leased. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the general analysis area would range from $91 to $300 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Lease issuance would allow the mine to maintain production rates and extend the life of the mine. Continued management of federal coal resources in the Powder River Basin would generate revenue that could be used to fund infrastructure and social projects in Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under both action alternatives, surface coal mining would permanently alter the topography of the proposed tract and reclaimed lands would be approximately 60 feet lower affecting microhabitats and habitat diversity. Surface mining would affect 478 acres of soil resources under the proposed action and up to 2,847 acres under Alternative 2. Moderately adverse impacts on air quality currently present at Buckskin Mine would continue for two up to six years. Mining would cause a long-term reduction in groundwater in aquifers beyond the final tract configuration as a result of seepage into and dewatering from excavations. 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: 100069, 641 pages, March 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-09 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils 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/756826676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.title=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCKSKIN MINE HAY CREEK II COAL LEASE APPLICATION, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING (FEDERAL COAL LEASE APPLICATION WYW-172684). AN - 16373974; 14223 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of federal coal reserves in the Hay Creek II tract adjacent to the Buckskin Mine, an operating surface coal mine in the Powder River Basin, in northeast Wyoming is proposed. Kiewit Mining Properties, Inc. filed an application on March 24, 2006 to lease approximately 54 million tons of recoverable federal coal in a maintenance tract that can be mined by an active coal mine. The proposed tract is located northwest and immediately adjacent to existing coal leases for the Buckskin Mine, 12 miles north of Gillete in Campbell County and encompasses 419 surface acres; approximately 182 acres overlap the existing Buckskin Mine permit area. Existing land uses on the proposed tract include rangeland livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, pastureland, dryland cropland, and coal bed natural gas development. Key issues identified during scoping include potential conflicts between existing and proposed oil and gas development, impacts to big game herds and hunting, impacts to sage-grouse and listed species, potential health impacts related to blasting, cumulative impacts of coal leasing decisions on Powder River Basin, and site specific and cumulative impacts on air and water quality. Three alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the coal lease application would be rejected and no new coal reserves would be offered for sale at this time. The existing leases at the Buckskin Mine would be developed according to the current approved mining plan. Rejection of the lease application would not preclude an application to lease a tract in that area in the future. Under the proposed action, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the 77.2 million tons of in-place federal coal reserves. Under Alternative 2, the BLM would hold a competitive, sealed-bid sale and issue a lease for the federal coal reserves included in an alternative tract configuration that could include all or part of the proposed tract and additional reserves within the BLM study area, as determined by the BLM. The BLM study area includes up to approximately 1,883 acres and 269.7 million tons of in-place coal reserves. No new life-of-mine facilities would be built under any of the alternatives; coal reserves would be mined as an extension of the existing mine. The potential additional federal revenue from the general analysis area would range from $69 to $241 million, depending on the alternative selected and the bonus price when the coal is leased. The potential additional revenue to the state of Wyoming from the general analysis area would range from $91 to $300 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Lease issuance would allow the mine to maintain production rates and extend the life of the mine. Continued management of federal coal resources in the Powder River Basin would generate revenue that could be used to fund infrastructure and social projects in Wyoming. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under both action alternatives, surface coal mining would permanently alter the topography of the proposed tract and reclaimed lands would be approximately 60 feet lower affecting microhabitats and habitat diversity. Surface mining would affect 478 acres of soil resources under the proposed action and up to 2,847 acres under Alternative 2. Moderately adverse impacts on air quality currently present at Buckskin Mine would continue for two up to six years. Mining would cause a long-term reduction in groundwater in aquifers beyond the final tract configuration as a result of seepage into and dewatering from excavations. 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: 100069, 641 pages, March 4, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-10-09 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils 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/16373974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.title=BUCKSKIN+MINE+HAY+CREEK+II+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATION+WYW-172684%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-11 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756827005; 14186-100055_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Development of improved facilities for the Yosemite Institute Environmental Campus, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California is proposed. The non-profit Yosemite Institute, a National Park Service partner, has provided environmental education programs in the park since 1971 at its Crane Flat campus which consists of dormitories, a dining hall and gathering area, and bathhouses. The campus was assembled over time from older park structures not intentionally designed for educational purposes and most of the campus structures and utilities are more than 60 years old, energy inefficient, and difficult to retrofit to achieve modern standards for health, safety, and accessibility. In addition, the campus can accommodate only a fraction of the students in the program; the remainder must be based elsewhere in the park, in leased commercial lodging. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative, necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major rehabilitation of facilities, construction of buildings, or improvements to utilities would occur. Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat campus would be redeveloped, doubling its capacity to154 students and 14 staff. Most buildings would be removed and replaced while two historic properties would be retained. Utilities would be upgraded and the majority of the campus would be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would establish a new campus location and program at Henness Ridge where new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 224 students and 20 staff and utilities would be installed, including water storage, wastewater treatment, electricity, a solar array, and an emergency generator. A new firehouse would also be constructed and would be integral to the campus design. A water treatment plant would be constructed at Chinquapin. Electricity would be supplemented by tying into existing electric transmission lines. All facilities would be ADA-accessible and meet fire, health, and safety standards. The campus would include approximately 51,029 square feet of space. All existing campus structures and facilities, including historic properties at Crane Flat would be removed, and the site would be restored to natural conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would provide a safe and universally accessible campus facility that meets modern health standards. Program student capacity would be increased while reliance upon commercial lodging would be reduced and, as a result, student lodging would be more reliable and less costly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related grading, leveling, and minor excavation would cause soil compaction and topsoil erosion at the Henness Ridge site. Impacts to water quality would include construction-related stormwater runoff, an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, and new wastewater generation. Protected species would be impacted by loss of habitat, noise and ground vibrations, and noise from campus activities, artificial light, automobile traffic, and creation of new trails. Vegetation removal could result in the removal of important habitat for Pacific fisher and nesting and perching sites for owls and bats. LEGAL MANDATES: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-36) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0206D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100055, 556 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Electric Generators KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Storage KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826562; 14186-100055_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Development of improved facilities for the Yosemite Institute Environmental Campus, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California is proposed. The non-profit Yosemite Institute, a National Park Service partner, has provided environmental education programs in the park since 1971 at its Crane Flat campus which consists of dormitories, a dining hall and gathering area, and bathhouses. The campus was assembled over time from older park structures not intentionally designed for educational purposes and most of the campus structures and utilities are more than 60 years old, energy inefficient, and difficult to retrofit to achieve modern standards for health, safety, and accessibility. In addition, the campus can accommodate only a fraction of the students in the program; the remainder must be based elsewhere in the park, in leased commercial lodging. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative, necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major rehabilitation of facilities, construction of buildings, or improvements to utilities would occur. Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat campus would be redeveloped, doubling its capacity to154 students and 14 staff. Most buildings would be removed and replaced while two historic properties would be retained. Utilities would be upgraded and the majority of the campus would be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would establish a new campus location and program at Henness Ridge where new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 224 students and 20 staff and utilities would be installed, including water storage, wastewater treatment, electricity, a solar array, and an emergency generator. A new firehouse would also be constructed and would be integral to the campus design. A water treatment plant would be constructed at Chinquapin. Electricity would be supplemented by tying into existing electric transmission lines. All facilities would be ADA-accessible and meet fire, health, and safety standards. The campus would include approximately 51,029 square feet of space. All existing campus structures and facilities, including historic properties at Crane Flat would be removed, and the site would be restored to natural conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would provide a safe and universally accessible campus facility that meets modern health standards. Program student capacity would be increased while reliance upon commercial lodging would be reduced and, as a result, student lodging would be more reliable and less costly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related grading, leveling, and minor excavation would cause soil compaction and topsoil erosion at the Henness Ridge site. Impacts to water quality would include construction-related stormwater runoff, an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, and new wastewater generation. Protected species would be impacted by loss of habitat, noise and ground vibrations, and noise from campus activities, artificial light, automobile traffic, and creation of new trails. Vegetation removal could result in the removal of important habitat for Pacific fisher and nesting and perching sites for owls and bats. LEGAL MANDATES: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-36) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0206D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100055, 556 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Electric Generators KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Storage KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826523; 14182-100051_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The exploration and development of oil and gas reserves on approximately 25,900 acres in the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, Utah is proposed. Berry Petroleum Company (the operator) has submitted a Master Development Plan (MDP) to drill up to 400 oil and gas wells on federal mineral leases beyond the 30 wells that currently exist within the project area. According to the operator, the 400-well maximum represents a full development scenario based on currently known geologic and reservoir properties. The total number and specific locations of wells ultimately drilled and their bottom hole density would depend on factors such as production success, POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow the operator to explore for and extract, in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner, the recoverable oil and gas reserves in its existing federal oil and gas leases and would contribute to daily gas delivery from the Uintah Basin to help meet the growing national demand for clean-burning energy sources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity over the 55-year life of the proposed project would disturb 825 acres to 1,363 acres of surface and 5.3 miles to 8.7 miles of streams. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and non-motorized use, opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 100051, Volume 1--337 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--445 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826467; 14182-100051_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The exploration and development of oil and gas reserves on approximately 25,900 acres in the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, Utah is proposed. Berry Petroleum Company (the operator) has submitted a Master Development Plan (MDP) to drill up to 400 oil and gas wells on federal mineral leases beyond the 30 wells that currently exist within the project area. According to the operator, the 400-well maximum represents a full development scenario based on currently known geologic and reservoir properties. The total number and specific locations of wells ultimately drilled and their bottom hole density would depend on factors such as production success, POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow the operator to explore for and extract, in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner, the recoverable oil and gas reserves in its existing federal oil and gas leases and would contribute to daily gas delivery from the Uintah Basin to help meet the growing national demand for clean-burning energy sources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity over the 55-year life of the proposed project would disturb 825 acres to 1,363 acres of surface and 5.3 miles to 8.7 miles of streams. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and non-motorized use, opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 100051, Volume 1--337 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--445 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826406; 14182-100051_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The exploration and development of oil and gas reserves on approximately 25,900 acres in the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, Utah is proposed. Berry Petroleum Company (the operator) has submitted a Master Development Plan (MDP) to drill up to 400 oil and gas wells on federal mineral leases beyond the 30 wells that currently exist within the project area. According to the operator, the 400-well maximum represents a full development scenario based on currently known geologic and reservoir properties. The total number and specific locations of wells ultimately drilled and their bottom hole density would depend on factors such as production success, POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow the operator to explore for and extract, in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner, the recoverable oil and gas reserves in its existing federal oil and gas leases and would contribute to daily gas delivery from the Uintah Basin to help meet the growing national demand for clean-burning energy sources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity over the 55-year life of the proposed project would disturb 825 acres to 1,363 acres of surface and 5.3 miles to 8.7 miles of streams. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and non-motorized use, opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 100051, Volume 1--337 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--445 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16382616; 14186 AB - PURPOSE: Development of improved facilities for the Yosemite Institute Environmental Campus, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California is proposed. The non-profit Yosemite Institute, a National Park Service partner, has provided environmental education programs in the park since 1971 at its Crane Flat campus which consists of dormitories, a dining hall and gathering area, and bathhouses. The campus was assembled over time from older park structures not intentionally designed for educational purposes and most of the campus structures and utilities are more than 60 years old, energy inefficient, and difficult to retrofit to achieve modern standards for health, safety, and accessibility. In addition, the campus can accommodate only a fraction of the students in the program; the remainder must be based elsewhere in the park, in leased commercial lodging. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative, necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major rehabilitation of facilities, construction of buildings, or improvements to utilities would occur. Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat campus would be redeveloped, doubling its capacity to154 students and 14 staff. Most buildings would be removed and replaced while two historic properties would be retained. Utilities would be upgraded and the majority of the campus would be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would establish a new campus location and program at Henness Ridge where new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 224 students and 20 staff and utilities would be installed, including water storage, wastewater treatment, electricity, a solar array, and an emergency generator. A new firehouse would also be constructed and would be integral to the campus design. A water treatment plant would be constructed at Chinquapin. Electricity would be supplemented by tying into existing electric transmission lines. All facilities would be ADA-accessible and meet fire, health, and safety standards. The campus would include approximately 51,029 square feet of space. All existing campus structures and facilities, including historic properties at Crane Flat would be removed, and the site would be restored to natural conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would provide a safe and universally accessible campus facility that meets modern health standards. Program student capacity would be increased while reliance upon commercial lodging would be reduced and, as a result, student lodging would be more reliable and less costly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related grading, leveling, and minor excavation would cause soil compaction and topsoil erosion at the Henness Ridge site. Impacts to water quality would include construction-related stormwater runoff, an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, and new wastewater generation. Protected species would be impacted by loss of habitat, noise and ground vibrations, and noise from campus activities, artificial light, automobile traffic, and creation of new trails. Vegetation removal could result in the removal of important habitat for Pacific fisher and nesting and perching sites for owls and bats. LEGAL MANDATES: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-36) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0206D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100055, 556 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Electric Generators KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Storage KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16380362; 14182 AB - PURPOSE: The exploration and development of oil and gas reserves on approximately 25,900 acres in the South Unit of the Ashley National Forest, Duchesne County, Utah is proposed. Berry Petroleum Company (the operator) has submitted a Master Development Plan (MDP) to drill up to 400 oil and gas wells on federal mineral leases beyond the 30 wells that currently exist within the project area. According to the operator, the 400-well maximum represents a full development scenario based on currently known geologic and reservoir properties. The total number and specific locations of wells ultimately drilled and their bottom hole density would depend on factors such as production success, POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow the operator to explore for and extract, in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner, the recoverable oil and gas reserves in its existing federal oil and gas leases and would contribute to daily gas delivery from the Uintah Basin to help meet the growing national demand for clean-burning energy sources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity over the 55-year life of the proposed project would disturb 825 acres to 1,363 acres of surface and 5.3 miles to 8.7 miles of streams. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and non-motorized use, opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 100051, Volume 1--337 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--445 pages, February 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16380362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130057; 14164-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The applicant, Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), also proposes an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would include an amendment to the CDCA plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise, northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100033, Draft EIS--438 pages and maps, Appendices--927 pages, February 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127804; 14164-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The applicant, Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), also proposes an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would include an amendment to the CDCA plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise, northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100033, Draft EIS--438 pages and maps, Appendices--927 pages, February 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127146; 14164-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The applicant, Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), also proposes an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would include an amendment to the CDCA plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise, northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100033, Draft EIS--438 pages and maps, Appendices--927 pages, February 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAMPO REGIONAL LANDFILL PROJECT, CAMPO INDIAN RESERVATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1992). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CAMPO REGIONAL LANDFILL PROJECT, CAMPO INDIAN RESERVATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1992). AN - 756826551; 14176-100045_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an integrated solid waste management facility on the Campo Indian Reservation in San Diego County, California, is proposed. The Campo Indian Reservation, which consists of 16,000 acres, lies just north of the United States/Mexican border and approximately 45 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. A final EIS released in November, 1992 analyzed the original landfill project as proposed by the Campo Band of Mission Indians and two alternate site locations. In April, 1993 leases between the Campo Band and Muht-Hei, Inc. (MHI) were approved. After litigation, appeals, and a subcontractor default, a modified project incorporating more recent landfill design features is proposed in this supplemental draft EIS. The facility would be operated for a term of 30 years by MHI, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Campo Band. The proposed project site would include a 1,150-acre lease area comprised of a 493-acre landfill footprint and a 657-acre buffer area, and a 300-acre water well field northwest and partially outside of the lease area. The facility would have the capacity to accept 3,000 tons of solid waste per day for 30 years, and through subleases with MHI, the landfill would be constructed and operated by BLT/Campo, LLC. Up to 14 groundwater wells would be installed to provide water to the landfill for routine dust control, office use, irrigation of revegetation areas, and construction use. The income that would be generated by facility operations is projected to represent an increase of more than 25 percent in revenue to the Campo Band's economy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the landfill would provide a means of disposing of solid waste generated within San Diego County. Through a combination of lease revenues and tipping-fee arrangements, the proposed project would provide long-term revenue to the Campo Band, enabling the community to increase funding for education, housing, and social services and thereby improve tribal living conditions. Once operational, the proposed project would employ approximately 16 people, 10 of who would be members of the Campo Band; additional employment would result from economic development spending funded by project revenues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Landfill development at the proposed site would affect approximately 475 acres of chaparral vegetation, two acres of sagebrush scrub and grassland, and four oak trees. Careful monitoring would be required to ensure that groundwater contamination did not occur. Visual and noise impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Site development and use would generate offensive odors, fugitive dust, and vehicle emissions. Two archaeological sites could be adversely affected by construction of the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 and 6941 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 92-0122D, Volume 16, Number 2 and 92-0492F, Volume 16, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100045, Supplemental Draft EIS--356 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Indian Reservations KW - Landfills KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Campo Indian Reservation KW - California KW - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAMPO+REGIONAL+LANDFILL+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1992%29.&rft.title=CAMPO+REGIONAL+LANDFILL+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAMPO REGIONAL LANDFILL PROJECT, CAMPO INDIAN RESERVATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1992). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CAMPO REGIONAL LANDFILL PROJECT, CAMPO INDIAN RESERVATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1992). AN - 756826543; 14176-100045_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an integrated solid waste management facility on the Campo Indian Reservation in San Diego County, California, is proposed. The Campo Indian Reservation, which consists of 16,000 acres, lies just north of the United States/Mexican border and approximately 45 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. A final EIS released in November, 1992 analyzed the original landfill project as proposed by the Campo Band of Mission Indians and two alternate site locations. In April, 1993 leases between the Campo Band and Muht-Hei, Inc. (MHI) were approved. After litigation, appeals, and a subcontractor default, a modified project incorporating more recent landfill design features is proposed in this supplemental draft EIS. The facility would be operated for a term of 30 years by MHI, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Campo Band. The proposed project site would include a 1,150-acre lease area comprised of a 493-acre landfill footprint and a 657-acre buffer area, and a 300-acre water well field northwest and partially outside of the lease area. The facility would have the capacity to accept 3,000 tons of solid waste per day for 30 years, and through subleases with MHI, the landfill would be constructed and operated by BLT/Campo, LLC. Up to 14 groundwater wells would be installed to provide water to the landfill for routine dust control, office use, irrigation of revegetation areas, and construction use. The income that would be generated by facility operations is projected to represent an increase of more than 25 percent in revenue to the Campo Band's economy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the landfill would provide a means of disposing of solid waste generated within San Diego County. Through a combination of lease revenues and tipping-fee arrangements, the proposed project would provide long-term revenue to the Campo Band, enabling the community to increase funding for education, housing, and social services and thereby improve tribal living conditions. Once operational, the proposed project would employ approximately 16 people, 10 of who would be members of the Campo Band; additional employment would result from economic development spending funded by project revenues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Landfill development at the proposed site would affect approximately 475 acres of chaparral vegetation, two acres of sagebrush scrub and grassland, and four oak trees. Careful monitoring would be required to ensure that groundwater contamination did not occur. Visual and noise impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Site development and use would generate offensive odors, fugitive dust, and vehicle emissions. Two archaeological sites could be adversely affected by construction of the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 and 6941 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 92-0122D, Volume 16, Number 2 and 92-0492F, Volume 16, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100045, Supplemental Draft EIS--356 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Indian Reservations KW - Landfills KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Campo Indian Reservation KW - California KW - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAMPO+REGIONAL+LANDFILL+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1992%29.&rft.title=CAMPO+REGIONAL+LANDFILL+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909303; 14164 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The applicant, Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), also proposes an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would include an amendment to the CDCA plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise, northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100033, Draft EIS--438 pages and maps, Appendices--927 pages, February 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAMPO REGIONAL LANDFILL PROJECT, CAMPO INDIAN RESERVATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1992). AN - 16395019; 14176 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an integrated solid waste management facility on the Campo Indian Reservation in San Diego County, California, is proposed. The Campo Indian Reservation, which consists of 16,000 acres, lies just north of the United States/Mexican border and approximately 45 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. A final EIS released in November, 1992 analyzed the original landfill project as proposed by the Campo Band of Mission Indians and two alternate site locations. In April, 1993 leases between the Campo Band and Muht-Hei, Inc. (MHI) were approved. After litigation, appeals, and a subcontractor default, a modified project incorporating more recent landfill design features is proposed in this supplemental draft EIS. The facility would be operated for a term of 30 years by MHI, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Campo Band. The proposed project site would include a 1,150-acre lease area comprised of a 493-acre landfill footprint and a 657-acre buffer area, and a 300-acre water well field northwest and partially outside of the lease area. The facility would have the capacity to accept 3,000 tons of solid waste per day for 30 years, and through subleases with MHI, the landfill would be constructed and operated by BLT/Campo, LLC. Up to 14 groundwater wells would be installed to provide water to the landfill for routine dust control, office use, irrigation of revegetation areas, and construction use. The income that would be generated by facility operations is projected to represent an increase of more than 25 percent in revenue to the Campo Band's economy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the landfill would provide a means of disposing of solid waste generated within San Diego County. Through a combination of lease revenues and tipping-fee arrangements, the proposed project would provide long-term revenue to the Campo Band, enabling the community to increase funding for education, housing, and social services and thereby improve tribal living conditions. Once operational, the proposed project would employ approximately 16 people, 10 of who would be members of the Campo Band; additional employment would result from economic development spending funded by project revenues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Landfill development at the proposed site would affect approximately 475 acres of chaparral vegetation, two acres of sagebrush scrub and grassland, and four oak trees. Careful monitoring would be required to ensure that groundwater contamination did not occur. Visual and noise impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Site development and use would generate offensive odors, fugitive dust, and vehicle emissions. Two archaeological sites could be adversely affected by construction of the access road. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 and 6941 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 92-0122D, Volume 16, Number 2 and 92-0492F, Volume 16, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100045, Supplemental Draft EIS--356 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, February 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Indian Reservations KW - Landfills KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Campo Indian Reservation KW - California KW - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16395019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAMPO+REGIONAL+LANDFILL+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1992%29.&rft.title=CAMPO+REGIONAL+LANDFILL+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLE ELUM DAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES AND FISH REINTRODUCTION PROJECT, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CLE ELUM DAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES AND FISH REINTRODUCTION PROJECT, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756827113; 14156-100029_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam and the reintroduction of fish populations above the dam on the Cle Elum River, Kittitas County, Washington are proposed. Cle Elum Dam did not include fish passage facilities when constructed in 1933; consequently, passage to upstream habitat for fish species was blocked. Cle Elum Reservoir was a natural lake that historically supported populations of three species of salmon (sockeye, coho, and spring chinook), steelhead, Pacific lamprey, bull trout, and other resident fish. The proposed project would include downstream juvenile fish passage and upstream adult fish passage facilities. The reintroduction project could involve the use of both low-scale efforts, such as the transportation and release of adults for natural spawning, and intensive supplementation techniques, such as hatchery production, to restore fish above the dam. Specifically, the project seeks to: restore sockeye salmon populations to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting harvest; increase the life history diversity, geographic distribution, and abundance of coho salmon, spring chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting increased harvest; contribute to the recovery of federally-listed upper Middle Columbia River steelhead; and reconnect isolated populations of federally-listed bull trout. A No Action Alternative, two action alternatives for fish passage, and one alternative for fish reintroduction are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the dam would not be modified and the existing interim fish passage facility would be removed. Alternative 2 would include construction of facilities for downstream juvenile fish passage on the right bank and upstream adult fish passage on the left bank. The downstream facility would include a multilevel gated intake structure located in the forebay 500 feet upstream of the spillway inlet channel and a juvenile fish bypass conduit. The upstream facility would include a barrier dam and fish ladder and adult collection facility. Alternative 3 would include construction of similar facilities, but all adult passage facilities would be located on the right bank eliminating the need for a barrier dam. Construction costs for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are estimated in 2004 dollars at $81.0 million $65.6 million, respectively. With regard to proposed fish reintroduction above the dam, the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would discontinue plans. Under Alternative 2, an active project to accelerate adult and juvenile salmon repopulation in the habitat above the dam would be implemented and a fish hatchery could be constructed in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam would restore ecological connectivity, biodiversity, and natural production of anadromous salmonids in Cle Elum Reservoir. Fish reintroduction would benefit native fish populations in the Cle Elum basin by providing additional food sources and nutrients. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause ground disturbance in the area around and downstream of the dam with some potential of affecting historical sites. Some resident fish species could be negatively affected by interspecific competition, predation, and other factors related to reintroduction; but overall effects on the ecosystem are expected to be positive. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-434). JF - EPA number: 100029, 299 pages, January 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-03 KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Reservoirs KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Washington KW - Cle Elum River KW - Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLE ELUM DAM FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES AND FISH REINTRODUCTION PROJECT, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 754909779; 14156 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam and the reintroduction of fish populations above the dam on the Cle Elum River, Kittitas County, Washington are proposed. Cle Elum Dam did not include fish passage facilities when constructed in 1933; consequently, passage to upstream habitat for fish species was blocked. Cle Elum Reservoir was a natural lake that historically supported populations of three species of salmon (sockeye, coho, and spring chinook), steelhead, Pacific lamprey, bull trout, and other resident fish. The proposed project would include downstream juvenile fish passage and upstream adult fish passage facilities. The reintroduction project could involve the use of both low-scale efforts, such as the transportation and release of adults for natural spawning, and intensive supplementation techniques, such as hatchery production, to restore fish above the dam. Specifically, the project seeks to: restore sockeye salmon populations to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting harvest; increase the life history diversity, geographic distribution, and abundance of coho salmon, spring chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey to self-sustaining levels capable of supporting increased harvest; contribute to the recovery of federally-listed upper Middle Columbia River steelhead; and reconnect isolated populations of federally-listed bull trout. A No Action Alternative, two action alternatives for fish passage, and one alternative for fish reintroduction are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the dam would not be modified and the existing interim fish passage facility would be removed. Alternative 2 would include construction of facilities for downstream juvenile fish passage on the right bank and upstream adult fish passage on the left bank. The downstream facility would include a multilevel gated intake structure located in the forebay 500 feet upstream of the spillway inlet channel and a juvenile fish bypass conduit. The upstream facility would include a barrier dam and fish ladder and adult collection facility. Alternative 3 would include construction of similar facilities, but all adult passage facilities would be located on the right bank eliminating the need for a barrier dam. Construction costs for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are estimated in 2004 dollars at $81.0 million $65.6 million, respectively. With regard to proposed fish reintroduction above the dam, the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would discontinue plans. Under Alternative 2, an active project to accelerate adult and juvenile salmon repopulation in the habitat above the dam would be implemented and a fish hatchery could be constructed in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of fish passage facilities at Cle Elum Dam would restore ecological connectivity, biodiversity, and natural production of anadromous salmonids in Cle Elum Reservoir. Fish reintroduction would benefit native fish populations in the Cle Elum basin by providing additional food sources and nutrients. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would cause ground disturbance in the area around and downstream of the dam with some potential of affecting historical sites. Some resident fish species could be negatively affected by interspecific competition, predation, and other factors related to reintroduction; but overall effects on the ecosystem are expected to be positive. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-434). JF - EPA number: 100029, 299 pages, January 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-03 KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Reservoirs KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Washington KW - Cle Elum River KW - Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1902, Compliance KW - Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Act of 1994, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CLE+ELUM+DAM+FISH+PASSAGE+FACILITIES+AND+FISH+REINTRODUCTION+PROJECT%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE WYOMING RANGE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE WYOMING RANGE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 756826958; 14155-100028_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The evaluation of prior decisions to authorize oil and gas exploration leases covering 44,720 acres within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. The Forest Service determined in the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), adopted on March 2, 1990, that the subject land, located along the east slope of the Wyoming Range, would be available for oil and gas leasing. This decision was reviewed and refined in three environmental assessments prepared in 1990, 1991, and 1993. Subsequent to Forest Service authorization on June 15, 2005, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered the subject lands for lease and identified successful bidders for 35 leases. Twelve leases covering 20,963 were issued but were later placed in suspension pending an appeal based on deficiencies in environmental analyses. On August 21, 2009, BLM determined that it would not accept offers for the remaining 23 leases that were never issued; some of the high bidders for those leases have appealed this decision. This draft supplemental EIS considers significant new information requiring further analysis as part of a staged decision process that began with the 1990 Forest Plan. Because resolution of appeals is pending, all 44,720 acres of parcels are included in the analyses. Key issues include those related to social and economic conditions, impacts to backcountry recreation and scenery, recovery of energy resources, impacts to ground water, wildlife and plant habitat, and air quality. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered. Under the No Action Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the leases under suspension would be canceled and leases under protest not awarded. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), 12 suspended leases and 23 pending leases would be authorized and issued. Stipulations would include protection of steep slopes and unstable soils; buffers along national trails, bighorn sheep areas, and administrative sites; timing limits applicable to big game winter ranges and calving/fawning areas; and controlled road densities. Under Alternative 3, additional stipulations would include specific restrictions for wildlife and fish habitat, air quality, and recreation setting protection. Alternative 4 would eliminate all but 6,000 acres from disposition and leasing would be authorized only for portions of the original parcels within one mile of an existing producing federal lease on National Forest land. Versions of Alternatives 2 and 3 based on the reduced acreage and location of the 12 suspended leases are also presented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would protect essential habitat for lynx, believed to be of crucial, immediate importance to the small remaining lynx population in the Wyoming Range. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, there would be no opportunity for exploration and or development of the estimated 139 to 255 billion cubic feet of gas underlying the 44,720-acre area and 80 to 146 billion cubic feet of gas underlying the 20,963-acre reduced area. All the action alternatives would affect recreation to varying degrees. Effects from development on sensitive plants would include direct loss of individuals or habitat, alteration of habitat such as fragmentation/isolation, and noxious weed invasion. Generalized effects on wildlife habitat from the action alternatives would include loss of habitat, disturbance, road related effects, effects on linkages (primarily to the Canada lynx) and migration routes (primarily elk and mule deer). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, see 86-0429D, and 89-0348F. JF - EPA number: 100028, 448 pages, January 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+IN+THE+WYOMING+RANGE%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+IN+THE+WYOMING+RANGE%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE WYOMING RANGE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE WYOMING RANGE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 756826843; 14155-100028_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The evaluation of prior decisions to authorize oil and gas exploration leases covering 44,720 acres within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. The Forest Service determined in the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), adopted on March 2, 1990, that the subject land, located along the east slope of the Wyoming Range, would be available for oil and gas leasing. This decision was reviewed and refined in three environmental assessments prepared in 1990, 1991, and 1993. Subsequent to Forest Service authorization on June 15, 2005, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered the subject lands for lease and identified successful bidders for 35 leases. Twelve leases covering 20,963 were issued but were later placed in suspension pending an appeal based on deficiencies in environmental analyses. On August 21, 2009, BLM determined that it would not accept offers for the remaining 23 leases that were never issued; some of the high bidders for those leases have appealed this decision. This draft supplemental EIS considers significant new information requiring further analysis as part of a staged decision process that began with the 1990 Forest Plan. Because resolution of appeals is pending, all 44,720 acres of parcels are included in the analyses. Key issues include those related to social and economic conditions, impacts to backcountry recreation and scenery, recovery of energy resources, impacts to ground water, wildlife and plant habitat, and air quality. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered. Under the No Action Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the leases under suspension would be canceled and leases under protest not awarded. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), 12 suspended leases and 23 pending leases would be authorized and issued. Stipulations would include protection of steep slopes and unstable soils; buffers along national trails, bighorn sheep areas, and administrative sites; timing limits applicable to big game winter ranges and calving/fawning areas; and controlled road densities. Under Alternative 3, additional stipulations would include specific restrictions for wildlife and fish habitat, air quality, and recreation setting protection. Alternative 4 would eliminate all but 6,000 acres from disposition and leasing would be authorized only for portions of the original parcels within one mile of an existing producing federal lease on National Forest land. Versions of Alternatives 2 and 3 based on the reduced acreage and location of the 12 suspended leases are also presented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would protect essential habitat for lynx, believed to be of crucial, immediate importance to the small remaining lynx population in the Wyoming Range. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, there would be no opportunity for exploration and or development of the estimated 139 to 255 billion cubic feet of gas underlying the 44,720-acre area and 80 to 146 billion cubic feet of gas underlying the 20,963-acre reduced area. All the action alternatives would affect recreation to varying degrees. Effects from development on sensitive plants would include direct loss of individuals or habitat, alteration of habitat such as fragmentation/isolation, and noxious weed invasion. Generalized effects on wildlife habitat from the action alternatives would include loss of habitat, disturbance, road related effects, effects on linkages (primarily to the Canada lynx) and migration routes (primarily elk and mule deer). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, see 86-0429D, and 89-0348F. JF - EPA number: 100028, 448 pages, January 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+IN+THE+WYOMING+RANGE%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+IN+THE+WYOMING+RANGE%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE WYOMING RANGE, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 754908429; 14155 AB - PURPOSE: The evaluation of prior decisions to authorize oil and gas exploration leases covering 44,720 acres within Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. The Forest Service determined in the Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), adopted on March 2, 1990, that the subject land, located along the east slope of the Wyoming Range, would be available for oil and gas leasing. This decision was reviewed and refined in three environmental assessments prepared in 1990, 1991, and 1993. Subsequent to Forest Service authorization on June 15, 2005, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered the subject lands for lease and identified successful bidders for 35 leases. Twelve leases covering 20,963 were issued but were later placed in suspension pending an appeal based on deficiencies in environmental analyses. On August 21, 2009, BLM determined that it would not accept offers for the remaining 23 leases that were never issued; some of the high bidders for those leases have appealed this decision. This draft supplemental EIS considers significant new information requiring further analysis as part of a staged decision process that began with the 1990 Forest Plan. Because resolution of appeals is pending, all 44,720 acres of parcels are included in the analyses. Key issues include those related to social and economic conditions, impacts to backcountry recreation and scenery, recovery of energy resources, impacts to ground water, wildlife and plant habitat, and air quality. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered. Under the No Action Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, the leases under suspension would be canceled and leases under protest not awarded. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), 12 suspended leases and 23 pending leases would be authorized and issued. Stipulations would include protection of steep slopes and unstable soils; buffers along national trails, bighorn sheep areas, and administrative sites; timing limits applicable to big game winter ranges and calving/fawning areas; and controlled road densities. Under Alternative 3, additional stipulations would include specific restrictions for wildlife and fish habitat, air quality, and recreation setting protection. Alternative 4 would eliminate all but 6,000 acres from disposition and leasing would be authorized only for portions of the original parcels within one mile of an existing producing federal lease on National Forest land. Versions of Alternatives 2 and 3 based on the reduced acreage and location of the 12 suspended leases are also presented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would protect essential habitat for lynx, believed to be of crucial, immediate importance to the small remaining lynx population in the Wyoming Range. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, there would be no opportunity for exploration and or development of the estimated 139 to 255 billion cubic feet of gas underlying the 44,720-acre area and 80 to 146 billion cubic feet of gas underlying the 20,963-acre reduced area. All the action alternatives would affect recreation to varying degrees. Effects from development on sensitive plants would include direct loss of individuals or habitat, alteration of habitat such as fragmentation/isolation, and noxious weed invasion. Generalized effects on wildlife habitat from the action alternatives would include loss of habitat, disturbance, road related effects, effects on linkages (primarily to the Canada lynx) and migration routes (primarily elk and mule deer). LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, see 86-0429D, and 89-0348F. JF - EPA number: 100028, 448 pages, January 27, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+IN+THE+WYOMING+RANGE%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING+IN+THE+WYOMING+RANGE%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 - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - GEN T1 - GAO--Review of Mérida Initiative (320706), Thursday, January 21, 2010, 1:30 p.m. AN - 1679099299; MD01759 AB - Summarizes conversation among General Accountability Office and Customs and Border Protection officials about implementation of Mérida Initiative. AU - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of International Affairs AD - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of International Affairs PY - 2010 SP - 2 KW - Internal oversight KW - Mérida Initiative UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679099299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Adnsa_md&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=GAO--Review+of+M%C3%A9rida+Initiative+%28320706%29%2C+Thursday%2C+January+21%2C+2010%2C+1%3A30+p.m.&rft.au=United+States.+Department+of+Homeland+Security.+Customs+and+Border+Protection.+Office+of+International+Affairs&rft.aulast=United+States.+Department+of+Homeland+Security.+Customs+and+Border+Protection.+Office+of+International+Affairs&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - Digital National Security Archive N1 - Name - United States. Department of Homeland Security. Customs and Border Protection. Office of Field Operations; United States. Government Accountability Office N1 - Analyte descriptor - NSA document type: Memorandum of Conversation N1 - Last updated - 2015-06-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756826864; 14145-100018_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756826552; 14145-100018_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756826526; 14145-100018_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756826513; 14145-100018_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756826499; 14145-100018_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+American+Journal+of+Psychiatry&rft.atitle=Psychiatric+comorbidity%2C+family+dysfunction%2C+and+social+impairment+in+referred+youth+with+oppositional+defiant+disorder&rft.au=Greene%2C+Ross+W%3BBiederman%2C+Joseph%3BZerwas%2C+Stephanie%3BMonuteaux%2C+Michael+C%3Bet+al&rft.aulast=Greene&rft.aufirst=Ross&rft.date=2002-07-01&rft.volume=159&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1214&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+American+Journal+of+Psychiatry&rft.issn=0002953X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756826491; 14145-100018_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAYETTE, RALEIGH, AND SUMMERS COUNTIES, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 16388706; 14145 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan (GMP) for the New River Gorge National River located in Fayette, Raleigh, and Summers counties, West Virginia is proposed. The authorized boundary of the park currently encompasses 72,186 acres within a 53-mile corridor along the New River in the Kanawha section of the Appalachian Highlands. The 1,000-foot-deep New River Gorge is the most prominent physiographic feature at the park. Since 1978 the National Park Service has acquired 52,960 acres from willing sellers within the boundary and has secured conservation easements on another 164 acres. In 2007 approximately 1.18 million people visited New River Gorge National River, mostly during the summer months. The current GMP for the park is 25 years old and does not address changed conditions and circumstances. Once reviewed and finalized, the new GMP will guide management of the park for the next 20 years. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize the differences among subareas of the gorge, improving them to reflect their differing character, resources, and visitor experiences. Cultural resources and interpretive experiences would be emphasized in themed areas in the north and south ends of the park which would be connected by trails; primitive recreation would be emphasized in the middle of the park where large tracts of intact forest would be managed as backcountry. Alternative 3 would unify the park by providing a north-south through park hike and bike trail that would enable visitors to travel the park on single-track trails at or near the river. Only the park's most intact and unfragmented forest tracts would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 4, river gateways would be enhanced as the primary access points in the park. Cultural and recreation resources and experiences would be emphasized in proximity to gateways and along rim to river trails and roads. Large tracts of intact forest that are not near river gateways and primary rim to river travel routes would be managed as backcountry. Under Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, areas for primitive recreational experiences would be preserved from end to end of the park. Interspersed with these primitive areas would be cultural and interpretive resource focal areas where visitors could explore communities and places that once populated the gorge, experience the river, and enjoy a variety of recreational experiences. A north-south through park connector composed of improved scenic roads and trails would enable visitors to travel the length of the park. Large tracts of intact forest along one or both sides of the New River throughout the park would be managed as backcountry. Hunting would continue largely as it is today and parts of the historic Grandview State Park would be opened to limited bow hunting. Alternative 5 would also include development of a game management plan, potential joint hiking and biking use of several existing and new trails, up to four new developed campgrounds, and development of a camping management plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the action alternatives, the desired future conditions would better define management goals for the park and would guide development of targeted strategies to protect and improve park resources. Long-term beneficial impacts would occur to natural, scenic, and cultural resources throughout the park as a result of managing large areas as backcountry. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, cultural resource management actions would have potential to disturb 105 acres of previously disturbed soils. Development of new or improved visitor use facilities would disturb 190 to 210 acres. Visitor use over the long term would have the potential to trample vegetation and expose soils in heavily used areas and along trails. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 100018, 857 pages and maps, January 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-02 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wilderness KW - New River KW - New River Gorge National River KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RIVER+GORGE+NATIONAL+RIVER%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAYETTE%2C+RALEIGH%2C+AND+SUMMERS+COUNTIES%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glen Jean, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). AN - 756826854; 14136-100009_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Boundary adjustments to the Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area (CTA), Clark County, Nevada are proposed. The county encompasses the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was authorized by legislation in 1998 and 2002 to dispose of federal lands to address the continuing growth. The CTA alternative referenced in the final Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary EIS of December 2004 allowed for the disposal of 46,700 acres of land in the Las Vegas Valley, but specified additional analysis of 5,000 acres to be withheld from sale because of their high concentration of sensitive resources. The CTA study area was subsequently expanded to 13,622 acres. Within the final CTA boundary, a conservation strategy agreement would be developed to protect vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species. This supplemental draft EIS describes and analyzes possible boundary adjustments for the Upper Las Vegas Wash CTA. The study area is located within a broad, northwest-southeast-trending alluvial basin, and the Las Vegas Wash is a heavily incised natural flood channel that carries storm water and runoff from Las Vegas to Lake Mead. Three rare plant species and a number of protected wildlife species occur within the area and it contains large numbers of paleontological sites, 660 acres of the Tule Springs archaeological site, and the 300-acre Eglington Preserve. Six alternative CTA boundaries, ranging from 1,500 acres for the No Action Alternative, to almost 13,000 acres for Alternative A, are analyzed. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a boundary of 11,008 acres would include fossil formations, sensitive cultural and plant resources, active wash and 100-year floodplain, and the adjacent upper alluvial fan. Alternative B would include the Eglington Preserve, but not the Tule Springs lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A final boundary based on best science would ensure the natural functioning of the Upper Las Vegas Wash, including adjacent alluvial fans, while allowing for compatible development or uses. The sensitive botanical, cultural, and paleontological resources in the CTA would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased erosion and sedimentation would occur as a result of increased land uses. Under the preferred alternative, private development on 2,315 acres would yield up to 1,440 tons of sediment loss annually as a result of surface erosion and up to 1,030 tons of stream bank erosion. Undeveloped landscapes would be converted to high-density urban development with consequent increases in ambient noise. There would be potential for exposure and destruction of undocumented fossil localities. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0255D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0432F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100009, Draft Supplemental EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--377 pages and maps, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-01, BLM/NV/EL/ES-10/06+1793 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Las Vegas Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). AN - 756826846; 14136-100009_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Boundary adjustments to the Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area (CTA), Clark County, Nevada are proposed. The county encompasses the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was authorized by legislation in 1998 and 2002 to dispose of federal lands to address the continuing growth. The CTA alternative referenced in the final Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary EIS of December 2004 allowed for the disposal of 46,700 acres of land in the Las Vegas Valley, but specified additional analysis of 5,000 acres to be withheld from sale because of their high concentration of sensitive resources. The CTA study area was subsequently expanded to 13,622 acres. Within the final CTA boundary, a conservation strategy agreement would be developed to protect vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species. This supplemental draft EIS describes and analyzes possible boundary adjustments for the Upper Las Vegas Wash CTA. The study area is located within a broad, northwest-southeast-trending alluvial basin, and the Las Vegas Wash is a heavily incised natural flood channel that carries storm water and runoff from Las Vegas to Lake Mead. Three rare plant species and a number of protected wildlife species occur within the area and it contains large numbers of paleontological sites, 660 acres of the Tule Springs archaeological site, and the 300-acre Eglington Preserve. Six alternative CTA boundaries, ranging from 1,500 acres for the No Action Alternative, to almost 13,000 acres for Alternative A, are analyzed. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a boundary of 11,008 acres would include fossil formations, sensitive cultural and plant resources, active wash and 100-year floodplain, and the adjacent upper alluvial fan. Alternative B would include the Eglington Preserve, but not the Tule Springs lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A final boundary based on best science would ensure the natural functioning of the Upper Las Vegas Wash, including adjacent alluvial fans, while allowing for compatible development or uses. The sensitive botanical, cultural, and paleontological resources in the CTA would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased erosion and sedimentation would occur as a result of increased land uses. Under the preferred alternative, private development on 2,315 acres would yield up to 1,440 tons of sediment loss annually as a result of surface erosion and up to 1,030 tons of stream bank erosion. Undeveloped landscapes would be converted to high-density urban development with consequent increases in ambient noise. There would be potential for exposure and destruction of undocumented fossil localities. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0255D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0432F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100009, Draft Supplemental EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--377 pages and maps, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-01, BLM/NV/EL/ES-10/06+1793 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Las Vegas Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). AN - 756826540; 14136-100009_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Boundary adjustments to the Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area (CTA), Clark County, Nevada are proposed. The county encompasses the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was authorized by legislation in 1998 and 2002 to dispose of federal lands to address the continuing growth. The CTA alternative referenced in the final Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary EIS of December 2004 allowed for the disposal of 46,700 acres of land in the Las Vegas Valley, but specified additional analysis of 5,000 acres to be withheld from sale because of their high concentration of sensitive resources. The CTA study area was subsequently expanded to 13,622 acres. Within the final CTA boundary, a conservation strategy agreement would be developed to protect vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species. This supplemental draft EIS describes and analyzes possible boundary adjustments for the Upper Las Vegas Wash CTA. The study area is located within a broad, northwest-southeast-trending alluvial basin, and the Las Vegas Wash is a heavily incised natural flood channel that carries storm water and runoff from Las Vegas to Lake Mead. Three rare plant species and a number of protected wildlife species occur within the area and it contains large numbers of paleontological sites, 660 acres of the Tule Springs archaeological site, and the 300-acre Eglington Preserve. Six alternative CTA boundaries, ranging from 1,500 acres for the No Action Alternative, to almost 13,000 acres for Alternative A, are analyzed. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a boundary of 11,008 acres would include fossil formations, sensitive cultural and plant resources, active wash and 100-year floodplain, and the adjacent upper alluvial fan. Alternative B would include the Eglington Preserve, but not the Tule Springs lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A final boundary based on best science would ensure the natural functioning of the Upper Las Vegas Wash, including adjacent alluvial fans, while allowing for compatible development or uses. The sensitive botanical, cultural, and paleontological resources in the CTA would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased erosion and sedimentation would occur as a result of increased land uses. Under the preferred alternative, private development on 2,315 acres would yield up to 1,440 tons of sediment loss annually as a result of surface erosion and up to 1,030 tons of stream bank erosion. Undeveloped landscapes would be converted to high-density urban development with consequent increases in ambient noise. There would be potential for exposure and destruction of undocumented fossil localities. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0255D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0432F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100009, Draft Supplemental EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--377 pages and maps, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-01, BLM/NV/EL/ES-10/06+1793 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Las Vegas Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). AN - 754908415; 14136 AB - PURPOSE: Boundary adjustments to the Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area (CTA), Clark County, Nevada are proposed. The county encompasses the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the US, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was authorized by legislation in 1998 and 2002 to dispose of federal lands to address the continuing growth. The CTA alternative referenced in the final Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary EIS of December 2004 allowed for the disposal of 46,700 acres of land in the Las Vegas Valley, but specified additional analysis of 5,000 acres to be withheld from sale because of their high concentration of sensitive resources. The CTA study area was subsequently expanded to 13,622 acres. Within the final CTA boundary, a conservation strategy agreement would be developed to protect vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species. This supplemental draft EIS describes and analyzes possible boundary adjustments for the Upper Las Vegas Wash CTA. The study area is located within a broad, northwest-southeast-trending alluvial basin, and the Las Vegas Wash is a heavily incised natural flood channel that carries storm water and runoff from Las Vegas to Lake Mead. Three rare plant species and a number of protected wildlife species occur within the area and it contains large numbers of paleontological sites, 660 acres of the Tule Springs archaeological site, and the 300-acre Eglington Preserve. Six alternative CTA boundaries, ranging from 1,500 acres for the No Action Alternative, to almost 13,000 acres for Alternative A, are analyzed. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, a boundary of 11,008 acres would include fossil formations, sensitive cultural and plant resources, active wash and 100-year floodplain, and the adjacent upper alluvial fan. Alternative B would include the Eglington Preserve, but not the Tule Springs lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A final boundary based on best science would ensure the natural functioning of the Upper Las Vegas Wash, including adjacent alluvial fans, while allowing for compatible development or uses. The sensitive botanical, cultural, and paleontological resources in the CTA would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased erosion and sedimentation would occur as a result of increased land uses. Under the preferred alternative, private development on 2,315 acres would yield up to 1,440 tons of sediment loss annually as a result of surface erosion and up to 1,030 tons of stream bank erosion. Undeveloped landscapes would be converted to high-density urban development with consequent increases in ambient noise. There would be potential for exposure and destruction of undocumented fossil localities. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0255D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0432F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100009, Draft Supplemental EIS--316 pages and maps, Appendices--377 pages and maps, January 14, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-01, BLM/NV/EL/ES-10/06+1793 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Las Vegas Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756827047; 14160-100001_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756827033; 14160-100001_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826911; 14160-100001_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826883; 14160-100001_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826871; 14160-100001_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+American+Academy+of+Child+and+Adolescent+Psychiatry&rft.atitle=An+Efficacy%2Feffectiveness+Study+of+Cognitive-Behavioral+Treatment+for+Adolescents+with+Comorbid+Major+Depression+and+Conduct+Disorder.&rft.au=Rohde%2C+Paul%3BClarke%2C+Gregory+N.%3BMace%2C+David+E.%3BJorgensen%2C+Jenel+S.%3BSeeley%2C+John+R.&rft.aulast=Rohde&rft.aufirst=Paul&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=660&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Academy+of+Child+and+Adolescent+Psychiatry&rft.issn=08908567&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826859; 14160-100001_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826618; 14160-100001_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 756826486; 14160-100001_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 754908493; 14160 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a blanket certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In the draft EIS of June 2009, the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations were considered . The Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) route alternatives were recommended. Ruby's modified proposal, which incorporates the recommended three route alternatives and 15 route variations, is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zones and across 32 areas where soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial water bodies within 11 watershed basins. Eleven federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16.1 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 17,520 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0242D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100001, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, January 7, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Bureau of Indian Education Bureau-Wide Annual Report Card, 2009-2010 AN - 881456712; ED521187 AB - This document presents the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs' Bureau-Wide Annual Report Card for 2009-2010. This report presents data tables on: (1) Enrollment; (2) Average Daily Attendance Rate, Graduation Rate and Dropout Rate; (3) Student Achievement; and (4) High Quality Teachers. [For the 2008-2009 report, see ED521175.] Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 SP - 6 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Reading Achievement KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Dropout Rate KW - Enrollment KW - Language Arts KW - Science Achievement KW - American Indian Education KW - Graduation Rate KW - Teacher Effectiveness KW - Average Daily Attendance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881456712?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - GEN T1 - US Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability School Report Cards, SY 2009-2010 AN - 881456704; ED521178 AB - This document presents the Indian School Report Cards for School Year 2009-2010. Data tables for each school are presented according to: (1) Enrollment; (2) Average Daily Attendance Rate, Graduation Rate and Dropout Rate; (3) Student Achievement; and (4) High Quality Teachers. [For the 2008-2009 report, see ED521186.] Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 SP - 1301 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Reading Achievement KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Dropout Rate KW - Enrollment KW - Language Arts KW - Science Achievement KW - American Indian Education KW - Graduation Rate KW - Teacher Effectiveness KW - Average Daily Attendance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881456704?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826976; 14181-100050_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative, and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the SES Solar Two Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewable target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826970; 14181-100050_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative, and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the SES Solar Two Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewable target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826788; 14181-100050_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative, and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the SES Solar Two Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewable target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826782; 14181-100050_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative, and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the SES Solar Two Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewable target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826780; 14181-100050_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative, and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the SES Solar Two Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewable target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+American+journal+of+psychiatry&rft.atitle=Progression+from+conduct+disorder+to+antisocial+personality+disorder+following+treatment+for+adolescent+substance+abuse.&rft.au=Myers%2C+M+G%3BStewart%2C+D+G%3BBrown%2C+S+A&rft.aulast=Myers&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=1998-04-01&rft.volume=155&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=479&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+American+journal+of+psychiatry&rft.issn=0002953X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon AN - 1869031229; 2017-009002 JF - John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, Oregon Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 PB - U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC KW - United States KW - Ruminantia KW - Spermatophyta KW - John Day Formation KW - ichnofossils KW - national parks KW - ecosystems KW - Alnus KW - Dicotyledoneae KW - paleontology KW - Cenozoic KW - Theria KW - Oregon KW - Fissipeda KW - Felidae KW - conservation KW - ecology KW - Eutheria KW - Eusmilus KW - Plantae KW - Chordata KW - Wheeler County Oregon KW - Carnivora KW - Mammalia KW - John Day Fossil Beds National Monument KW - faunal studies KW - Artiodactyla KW - public lands KW - Tertiary KW - floral studies KW - Vertebrata KW - Tetrapoda KW - Angiospermae KW - 08:General paleontology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1869031229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=John+Day+Fossil+Beds+National+Monument%2C+Oregon&rft.title=John+Day+Fossil+Beds+National+Monument%2C+Oregon&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-17 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Potash AN - 1832602917; 710674-1 JF - Miscellaneous Report - Saskatchewan Geological Survey Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 PB - Saskatchewan Energy and Mines, Regina, SK SN - 0827-830X, 0827-830X KW - mineral exploration KW - halides KW - lithostratigraphy KW - cores KW - sedimentary rocks KW - mineral composition KW - sampling KW - folds KW - stratigraphic units KW - fertalizers KW - stratigraphic columns KW - potash KW - faults KW - bedrock KW - chemically precipitated rocks KW - chemical analysis KW - impurities KW - structural analysis KW - alkali metals KW - potassium chloride KW - potassic composition KW - correlation KW - evaporites KW - samples KW - evaporite deposits KW - boreholes KW - Canada KW - precipitation KW - metals KW - potassium KW - nonmetal deposits KW - surveys KW - Western Canada KW - Saskatchewan KW - field studies KW - 28A:Economic geology, geology of nonmetal deposits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832602917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Miscellaneous+Report+-+Saskatchewan+Geological+Survey&rft.atitle=Potash&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Miscellaneous+Report+-+Saskatchewan+Geological+Survey&rft.issn=0827830X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. Reference includes data supplied by CFES/FCST, Canada N1 - Number of references - 1 p. N1 - PubXState - SK N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alkali metals; bedrock; boreholes; Canada; chemical analysis; chemically precipitated rocks; cores; correlation; evaporite deposits; evaporites; faults; fertalizers; field studies; folds; halides; impurities; lithostratigraphy; metals; mineral composition; mineral exploration; nonmetal deposits; potash; potassic composition; potassium; potassium chloride; precipitation; samples; sampling; Saskatchewan; sedimentary rocks; stratigraphic columns; stratigraphic units; structural analysis; surveys; Western Canada ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16393417; 14181 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Stirling Energy Systems (SES) has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for development of the proposed SES Solar Two Project which would require a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project site is located on approximately 6,140 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and approximately 300 acres of privately owned land. The project would be constructed in two phases. Phase I of the project would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. In addition to the proposed project, three other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action alternatives are also evaluated in this draft EIS. The three build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative, and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the SES Solar Two Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewable target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100050, 1,571 pages, , 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16393417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-10 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Aniakchak; Aniakchak National Monument, Aniakchak National Preserve, Alaska AN - 1429842222; 2013-066598 JF - Aniakchak; Aniakchak National Monument, Aniakchak National Preserve, Alaska Y1 - 2010 PY - 2010 DA - 2010 PB - U. S. Department of the Interior KW - United States KW - Diapsida KW - geologic hazards KW - Aniakchak KW - national parks KW - ecosystems KW - areal geology KW - artifacts KW - Archosauria KW - volcanic features KW - pyroclastic flows KW - floods KW - ecology KW - dinosaurs KW - Chordata KW - archaeology KW - Aniakchak National Preserve KW - public lands KW - biota KW - Reptilia KW - calderas KW - natural hazards KW - volcanoes KW - Alaska KW - Southwestern Alaska KW - geomorphology KW - Aniakchak National Monument KW - Vertebrata KW - Tetrapoda KW - 13:Areal geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1429842222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Aniakchak%3B+Aniakchak+National+Monument%2C+Aniakchak+National+Preserve%2C+Alaska&rft.title=Aniakchak%3B+Aniakchak+National+Monument%2C+Aniakchak+National+Preserve%2C+Alaska&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873132566; 14523-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873132557; 14523-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873132346; 14523-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873132333; 14523-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Aggression%2C+Maltreatment+%26+Trauma&rft.atitle=The+role+of+trauma+in+conduct+disorder&rft.au=Greenwald%2C+Ricky&rft.aulast=Greenwald&rft.aufirst=Ricky&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=5&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Aggression%2C+Maltreatment+%26+Trauma&rft.issn=10926771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1300%2FJ146v06n01_02 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873132327; 14523-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873132321; 14523-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+family+physician&rft.atitle=Conduct+disorder%3A+diagnosis+and+treatment+in+primary+care.&rft.au=Searight%2C+H+R%3BRottnek%2C+F%3BAbby%2C+S+L&rft.aulast=Searight&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2001-04-15&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1579&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+family+physician&rft.issn=0002838X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873130689; 14523-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873130680; 14523-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 873130366; 14523-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project, which would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to Midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 301.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's Compressor Station Number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 19 mainline valves, and three pig launcher/receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, and route alternatives are considered in this final EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to Midwest markets. Five major route alternatives would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the Midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0359D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090450, Volume 1--765 pages and maps, Volume 2--565 pages, December 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233F KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Clinical+Pediatrics&rft.atitle=A+pilot+study+of+methylphenidate%2C+clonidine%2C+or+the+combination+in+ADHD+comorbid+with+aggressive+oppositional+defiant+or+conduct+disorder&rft.au=Connor%2C+Daniel+F%3BBarkley%2C+Russell+A%3BDavis%2C+Heather+T&rft.aulast=Connor&rft.aufirst=Daniel&rft.date=2000-01-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Clinical+Pediatrics&rft.issn=00099228&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-07 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROOSEVELT - VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ROOSEVELT - VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. AN - 756827377; 14260-090438_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan describing the resource conditions and visitor experience as they should exist at the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites over the next 20 years is proposed. Hyde Park, New York, is home to three national historic sites established by separate legislation: the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site; Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site (also known as Val-Kill); and the Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site. The sites are combined into a single administrative unit and attract more than half a million visitors every year. Together the parks include over 1,100 acres of federally owned land along the east bank of the Hudson River, along with two fully furnished mansions, 40 historic buildings, 14 miles of roads and trails, 35 acres of forest plantations set out by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), five historic gardens, nearly 100 acres of open fields, and over 25,000 objects and artifacts. The parks are supported by an annual budget of over $5 million and the work of hundreds of volunteers. Currently, three separate planning documents guide management of the sites. A No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, and two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives are general and would set the direction for future actions. Implementation would depend upon availability of funds. Action Alternative 1 would perpetuate the general philosophy and direction of existing management plans but would address changed conditions, additions to the parks, and increased knowledge of park resources. Proposed resource management efforts would focus on the landscape and would aim to restore the historic appearance of resources to the fullest extent possible within select areas. Forest plantations and natural woodlands would be managed to restore historic character and former farm fields would be returned to their historic extent and maintained as open meadow. The restoration of the FDR home garden, the Eleanor Roosevelt cutting garden, and the Vanderbilt formal gardens would concentrate on core historic areas. More tour options would be offered and educational programs enhanced. Partners and volunteers would provide increased assistance with maintenance and programming. By contrast, Action Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to make the parks relevant to more audiences by encouraging greater civic participation in park activities. Proposed resource management efforts would follow contemporary best practices for land management. Historic fields would be reclaimed and farming reintroduced, with contemporary practices allowed. Designed landscapes would be rehabilitated and missing features indicated via media. The Hudson River view would be expanded at the Home of FDR, with action taken to preserve the view at Vanderbilt. A wider choice of visitor experiences would be offered including forestry and farming demonstrations, a place-based learning center, changing exhibits and forums, and recreational use of trails. Significantly increased partner participation would help maintain resources, run programs, and generate revenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of a general plan would clearly define the purpose and direction for the historic sites and provide for coordinated management in an environment of limited federal funding. Activities would enhance visitor experience by increasing understanding of the historic condition and functioning of the properties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new segments of the trail system would impact the cultural landscape and could impact archeological resources. Some modification to historic interiors could be required and adaptive re-use of certain estate outbuildings could require new parking areas, pathways, or other non-historic elements. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090438, 337 pages, December 14, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-58 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - New York KW - Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROOSEVELT+-+VANDERBILT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITES+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HYDE+PARK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ROOSEVELT+-+VANDERBILT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITES+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HYDE+PARK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hyde Park, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROOSEVELT - VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ROOSEVELT - VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. AN - 756827063; 14260-090438_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan describing the resource conditions and visitor experience as they should exist at the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites over the next 20 years is proposed. Hyde Park, New York, is home to three national historic sites established by separate legislation: the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site; Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site (also known as Val-Kill); and the Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site. The sites are combined into a single administrative unit and attract more than half a million visitors every year. Together the parks include over 1,100 acres of federally owned land along the east bank of the Hudson River, along with two fully furnished mansions, 40 historic buildings, 14 miles of roads and trails, 35 acres of forest plantations set out by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), five historic gardens, nearly 100 acres of open fields, and over 25,000 objects and artifacts. The parks are supported by an annual budget of over $5 million and the work of hundreds of volunteers. Currently, three separate planning documents guide management of the sites. A No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, and two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives are general and would set the direction for future actions. Implementation would depend upon availability of funds. Action Alternative 1 would perpetuate the general philosophy and direction of existing management plans but would address changed conditions, additions to the parks, and increased knowledge of park resources. Proposed resource management efforts would focus on the landscape and would aim to restore the historic appearance of resources to the fullest extent possible within select areas. Forest plantations and natural woodlands would be managed to restore historic character and former farm fields would be returned to their historic extent and maintained as open meadow. The restoration of the FDR home garden, the Eleanor Roosevelt cutting garden, and the Vanderbilt formal gardens would concentrate on core historic areas. More tour options would be offered and educational programs enhanced. Partners and volunteers would provide increased assistance with maintenance and programming. By contrast, Action Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to make the parks relevant to more audiences by encouraging greater civic participation in park activities. Proposed resource management efforts would follow contemporary best practices for land management. Historic fields would be reclaimed and farming reintroduced, with contemporary practices allowed. Designed landscapes would be rehabilitated and missing features indicated via media. The Hudson River view would be expanded at the Home of FDR, with action taken to preserve the view at Vanderbilt. A wider choice of visitor experiences would be offered including forestry and farming demonstrations, a place-based learning center, changing exhibits and forums, and recreational use of trails. Significantly increased partner participation would help maintain resources, run programs, and generate revenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of a general plan would clearly define the purpose and direction for the historic sites and provide for coordinated management in an environment of limited federal funding. Activities would enhance visitor experience by increasing understanding of the historic condition and functioning of the properties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new segments of the trail system would impact the cultural landscape and could impact archeological resources. Some modification to historic interiors could be required and adaptive re-use of certain estate outbuildings could require new parking areas, pathways, or other non-historic elements. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090438, 337 pages, December 14, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-58 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - New York KW - Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROOSEVELT+-+VANDERBILT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITES+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HYDE+PARK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ROOSEVELT+-+VANDERBILT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITES+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HYDE+PARK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hyde Park, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROOSEVELT - VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. AN - 754908201; 14260 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan describing the resource conditions and visitor experience as they should exist at the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites over the next 20 years is proposed. Hyde Park, New York, is home to three national historic sites established by separate legislation: the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site; Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site (also known as Val-Kill); and the Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site. The sites are combined into a single administrative unit and attract more than half a million visitors every year. Together the parks include over 1,100 acres of federally owned land along the east bank of the Hudson River, along with two fully furnished mansions, 40 historic buildings, 14 miles of roads and trails, 35 acres of forest plantations set out by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), five historic gardens, nearly 100 acres of open fields, and over 25,000 objects and artifacts. The parks are supported by an annual budget of over $5 million and the work of hundreds of volunteers. Currently, three separate planning documents guide management of the sites. A No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, and two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives are general and would set the direction for future actions. Implementation would depend upon availability of funds. Action Alternative 1 would perpetuate the general philosophy and direction of existing management plans but would address changed conditions, additions to the parks, and increased knowledge of park resources. Proposed resource management efforts would focus on the landscape and would aim to restore the historic appearance of resources to the fullest extent possible within select areas. Forest plantations and natural woodlands would be managed to restore historic character and former farm fields would be returned to their historic extent and maintained as open meadow. The restoration of the FDR home garden, the Eleanor Roosevelt cutting garden, and the Vanderbilt formal gardens would concentrate on core historic areas. More tour options would be offered and educational programs enhanced. Partners and volunteers would provide increased assistance with maintenance and programming. By contrast, Action Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to make the parks relevant to more audiences by encouraging greater civic participation in park activities. Proposed resource management efforts would follow contemporary best practices for land management. Historic fields would be reclaimed and farming reintroduced, with contemporary practices allowed. Designed landscapes would be rehabilitated and missing features indicated via media. The Hudson River view would be expanded at the Home of FDR, with action taken to preserve the view at Vanderbilt. A wider choice of visitor experiences would be offered including forestry and farming demonstrations, a place-based learning center, changing exhibits and forums, and recreational use of trails. Significantly increased partner participation would help maintain resources, run programs, and generate revenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of a general plan would clearly define the purpose and direction for the historic sites and provide for coordinated management in an environment of limited federal funding. Activities would enhance visitor experience by increasing understanding of the historic condition and functioning of the properties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new segments of the trail system would impact the cultural landscape and could impact archeological resources. Some modification to historic interiors could be required and adaptive re-use of certain estate outbuildings could require new parking areas, pathways, or other non-historic elements. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090438, 337 pages, December 14, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-58 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - New York KW - Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Miguel&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1253&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Expert+Review+of+Neurotherapeutics&rft.issn=14737175&rft_id=info:doi/10.1586%2Fern.12.119 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hyde Park, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827397; 14254-090432_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall, Washington, DC is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the US Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under all alternatives cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from all of the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the no-action alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090432, 667 pages and maps, December 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-57 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827152; 14254-090432_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall, Washington, DC is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the US Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under all alternatives cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from all of the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the no-action alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090432, 667 pages and maps, December 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-57 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Irish+Journal+of+Psychology&rft.atitle=Psychosocial+profiles+of+Irish+children+with+conduct+disorders%2C+mixed+disorders+of+conduct+and+emotion+and+emotional+disorders&rft.au=Byrne%2C+Jacqueline%3BCarr%2C+Alan&rft.aulast=Byrne&rft.aufirst=Jacqueline&rft.date=1995-01-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=117&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Irish+Journal+of+Psychology&rft.issn=03033910&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F03033910.1995.10558049 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827086; 14254-090432_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall, Washington, DC is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the US Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under all alternatives cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from all of the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the no-action alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090432, 667 pages and maps, December 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-57 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756827079; 14254-090432_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall, Washington, DC is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the US Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under all alternatives cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from all of the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the no-action alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090432, 667 pages and maps, December 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-57 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+American+journal+of+drug+and+alcohol+abuse&rft.atitle=Adolescent+inhalant+use+among+male+patients+in+treatment+for+substance+and+behavior+problems%3A+two-year+outcome.&rft.au=Sakai%2C+Joseph+T%3BMikulich-Gilbertson%2C+Susan+K%3BCrowley%2C+Thomas+J&rft.aulast=Sakai&rft.aufirst=Joseph&rft.date=2006-01-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+American+journal+of+drug+and+alcohol+abuse&rft.issn=00952990&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 16385890; 14254 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall, Washington, DC is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the US Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under all alternatives cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from all of the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the no-action alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090432, 667 pages and maps, December 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-57 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MINIDOKA DAM SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT, MINIDOKA PROJECT, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - MINIDOKA DAM SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT, MINIDOKA PROJECT, IDAHO. AN - 756827403; 14251-090429_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Actions to correct structural problems at the Minidoka Dam spillway and associated facilities on Lake Walcott, Idaho are proposed. Minidoka Dam impounds Lake Walcott on the main stem Snake River about 18 miles northeast from the city of Burley, Idaho within the Minidoka Wildlife Refuge, and is operated as a run-of-the-river project with a few seasonal variations. Existing spillway releases travel through an extensive wetland area. After over 103 years of continued use, the 2,237-foot-long concrete spillway at the Minidoka Dam has reached the end of its functional lifespan. The concrete that forms the spillway crest and stoplog structure piers shows extensive visible deterioration at numerous locations. In addition, the potential for ice damage to the stoplog piers requires that reservoir water levels be dropped each winter. The headgate structures at the North Side and South Side canals also show serious concrete deterioration. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A); total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures (Alternative B); and replacement of just the spillway (Alternative C). Total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures is the preferred alternative. In addition, the designation of special use areas at the project site that would open areas currently closed for public use is proposed. The special use areas would allow for wading and float tubing associated with fishing, birding, and ice fishing. Under Alternative B, new overflow sections would be constructed downstream of the existing spillway. The new overflow sections would have a total length of up to 1,326 feet with a uniform crest elevation of 4,245 feet. The existing spillway would be used as a cofferdam during construction and would be partially demolished upon completion of the new spillway. New radial gate sections would consist of twelve 20-foot 8-inches wide by 17-foot high gated sections separated by 5-foot-wide piers and 4-foot-wide end walls. New dike Section 1 would extend up to 201 feet from the southern end of the new radial gate sections and would connect to a new South Side canal headworks structure. Section 2 of the new dike section would extend up to 334 feet southeast from the new South Side canal headworks structure toward the existing south dike. The new South Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 300 feet downstream of the existing structure which would be removed following completion of the new headworks. The new North Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 115 feet downstream of the existing headworks. All metalwork would be removed from the existing headworks and the existing concrete structure would be abandoned in place. Construction would take up to 31 months and would include a new service road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would prevent structural failure of the Minidoka Dam spillway and canal headworks and would ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation continues to meet obligations for water delivery, power generation, and flow augmentation. The designation of special use areas would allow historic recreational uses to continue on Bureau of Reclamation lands. Construction-related expenditures for Alternative B would result in 291 jobs, $28.5 million in output, and $10 million in labor income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B and C would adversely impact the historic integrity of the Minidoka Dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Total removal of the existing spillway in some areas such as upstream of the new radial gate sections would likely require in-water blasting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090429, 548 pages and maps, December 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-56 KW - Canals KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation KW - Reservoirs KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Lake Walcott KW - Snake River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-08&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=161&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Substance+Abuse+Treatment&rft.issn=07405472&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0740-5472%2801%2900193-3 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MINIDOKA DAM SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT, MINIDOKA PROJECT, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - MINIDOKA DAM SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT, MINIDOKA PROJECT, IDAHO. AN - 756827217; 14251-090429_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Actions to correct structural problems at the Minidoka Dam spillway and associated facilities on Lake Walcott, Idaho are proposed. Minidoka Dam impounds Lake Walcott on the main stem Snake River about 18 miles northeast from the city of Burley, Idaho within the Minidoka Wildlife Refuge, and is operated as a run-of-the-river project with a few seasonal variations. Existing spillway releases travel through an extensive wetland area. After over 103 years of continued use, the 2,237-foot-long concrete spillway at the Minidoka Dam has reached the end of its functional lifespan. The concrete that forms the spillway crest and stoplog structure piers shows extensive visible deterioration at numerous locations. In addition, the potential for ice damage to the stoplog piers requires that reservoir water levels be dropped each winter. The headgate structures at the North Side and South Side canals also show serious concrete deterioration. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A); total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures (Alternative B); and replacement of just the spillway (Alternative C). Total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures is the preferred alternative. In addition, the designation of special use areas at the project site that would open areas currently closed for public use is proposed. The special use areas would allow for wading and float tubing associated with fishing, birding, and ice fishing. Under Alternative B, new overflow sections would be constructed downstream of the existing spillway. The new overflow sections would have a total length of up to 1,326 feet with a uniform crest elevation of 4,245 feet. The existing spillway would be used as a cofferdam during construction and would be partially demolished upon completion of the new spillway. New radial gate sections would consist of twelve 20-foot 8-inches wide by 17-foot high gated sections separated by 5-foot-wide piers and 4-foot-wide end walls. New dike Section 1 would extend up to 201 feet from the southern end of the new radial gate sections and would connect to a new South Side canal headworks structure. Section 2 of the new dike section would extend up to 334 feet southeast from the new South Side canal headworks structure toward the existing south dike. The new South Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 300 feet downstream of the existing structure which would be removed following completion of the new headworks. The new North Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 115 feet downstream of the existing headworks. All metalwork would be removed from the existing headworks and the existing concrete structure would be abandoned in place. Construction would take up to 31 months and would include a new service road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would prevent structural failure of the Minidoka Dam spillway and canal headworks and would ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation continues to meet obligations for water delivery, power generation, and flow augmentation. The designation of special use areas would allow historic recreational uses to continue on Bureau of Reclamation lands. Construction-related expenditures for Alternative B would result in 291 jobs, $28.5 million in output, and $10 million in labor income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B and C would adversely impact the historic integrity of the Minidoka Dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Total removal of the existing spillway in some areas such as upstream of the new radial gate sections would likely require in-water blasting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090429, 548 pages and maps, December 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-56 KW - Canals KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation KW - Reservoirs KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Lake Walcott KW - Snake River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MINIDOKA+DAM+SPILLWAY+REPLACEMENT%2C+MINIDOKA+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=MINIDOKA+DAM+SPILLWAY+REPLACEMENT%2C+MINIDOKA+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MINIDOKA DAM SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT, MINIDOKA PROJECT, IDAHO. AN - 16384764; 14251 AB - PURPOSE: Actions to correct structural problems at the Minidoka Dam spillway and associated facilities on Lake Walcott, Idaho are proposed. Minidoka Dam impounds Lake Walcott on the main stem Snake River about 18 miles northeast from the city of Burley, Idaho within the Minidoka Wildlife Refuge, and is operated as a run-of-the-river project with a few seasonal variations. Existing spillway releases travel through an extensive wetland area. After over 103 years of continued use, the 2,237-foot-long concrete spillway at the Minidoka Dam has reached the end of its functional lifespan. The concrete that forms the spillway crest and stoplog structure piers shows extensive visible deterioration at numerous locations. In addition, the potential for ice damage to the stoplog piers requires that reservoir water levels be dropped each winter. The headgate structures at the North Side and South Side canals also show serious concrete deterioration. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A); total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures (Alternative B); and replacement of just the spillway (Alternative C). Total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures is the preferred alternative. In addition, the designation of special use areas at the project site that would open areas currently closed for public use is proposed. The special use areas would allow for wading and float tubing associated with fishing, birding, and ice fishing. Under Alternative B, new overflow sections would be constructed downstream of the existing spillway. The new overflow sections would have a total length of up to 1,326 feet with a uniform crest elevation of 4,245 feet. The existing spillway would be used as a cofferdam during construction and would be partially demolished upon completion of the new spillway. New radial gate sections would consist of twelve 20-foot 8-inches wide by 17-foot high gated sections separated by 5-foot-wide piers and 4-foot-wide end walls. New dike Section 1 would extend up to 201 feet from the southern end of the new radial gate sections and would connect to a new South Side canal headworks structure. Section 2 of the new dike section would extend up to 334 feet southeast from the new South Side canal headworks structure toward the existing south dike. The new South Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 300 feet downstream of the existing structure which would be removed following completion of the new headworks. The new North Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 115 feet downstream of the existing headworks. All metalwork would be removed from the existing headworks and the existing concrete structure would be abandoned in place. Construction would take up to 31 months and would include a new service road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would prevent structural failure of the Minidoka Dam spillway and canal headworks and would ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation continues to meet obligations for water delivery, power generation, and flow augmentation. The designation of special use areas would allow historic recreational uses to continue on Bureau of Reclamation lands. Construction-related expenditures for Alternative B would result in 291 jobs, $28.5 million in output, and $10 million in labor income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B and C would adversely impact the historic integrity of the Minidoka Dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Total removal of the existing spillway in some areas such as upstream of the new radial gate sections would likely require in-water blasting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090429, 548 pages and maps, December 8, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-56 KW - Canals KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation KW - Reservoirs KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Lake Walcott KW - Snake River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MINIDOKA+DAM+SPILLWAY+REPLACEMENT%2C+MINIDOKA+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=MINIDOKA+DAM+SPILLWAY+REPLACEMENT%2C+MINIDOKA+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. AN - 873126598; 14126-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Federal funding to help the City of Wichita complete the Equus Beds Aquifer Storage Recharge and Recovery Project (ASR), Harvey, Sedgwick, and Reno counties, Kansas is proposed. The ASR project is part of Wichita's Integrated Local Water Supply Plan and would pump water from the Little Arkansas River basin into the region's Equus Beds Aquifer for storage and later re-use. When completed, the ASR project would become the Equus Beds Division of the Bureau of Reclamation's Wichita Project. The Equus Beds aquifer lies under about 900,000 acres in six Kansas counties, but the project would cover only a small part of this area in northern Sedgwick and southern Harvey counties. The Equus Beds Well Field provided 60 percent of the city's water through 1992 and since that time the percentage has decreased to 32 percent. The proposed action is for Reclamation to help fund the 100 million gallons per day ASR project, which would draw water from the river, pretreat it, and recharge the aquifer in phases. Sixty percent of the water would come from surface water intakes, the rest from diversion wells installed along the river bank. Three recharge basins and 99 recharge recovery wells connected by pipelines would recharge the aquifer. Water would also be pumped directly from the river intakes. Two alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the Bureau of Reclamation would provide up to 25 percent of project costs or $30 million (indexed to 2003), whichever is less, to fund and implement the remaining phases of the project. The city has completed Phase I and is at work on Phase IIa and is requesting federal help for phases IIb, III, and IV. Total cost of construction of the project would be more than $500 million, including $27 million already spent on Phase I and $250 million estimated to be spent during phase II. Under the No Action alternative, the city would proceed with construction and operation of the ASR project without federal reimbursement. This alternative would have the same facilities built in the same sequence for the same construction and operation and maintenance costs as the preferred alternative, but with the city providing 100 percent of the construction, operation and maintenance costs of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Completion of the ASR project would allow Wichita to meet average daily water demands until 2050. The ASR would provide a safe and reliable municipal and industrial water supply by preventing the continuing decline of water levels in the Equus Beds aquifer. Base flow should increase in both the Arkansas and Little Arkansas rivers, and greater flows should improve aquatic habitat. Aquifer storage should help reduce impacts from evaporation and quality degradation. The ASR project should increase water levels in the aquifer to near historic levels and help to slow saltwater degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities would cause minor changes to surface geology, except in the case of recharge basins, where the removal of topsoils would be permanent. About 266 acres of soils and 65 acres of prime farmland would be permanently disturbed by construction of pre-treatment plants and other facilities. Project costs per customer under the No Action alternative (no federal funding) could raise environmental justice issues related to standards for maximum household payment capability for water. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 109-299 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090422, 196 pages, CD-ROM, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-29 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Rivers KW - Salinity Control KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Arkansas River KW - Kansas KW - Little Arkansas River KW - Public Law 109-299, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. AN - 873126593; 14126-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Federal funding to help the City of Wichita complete the Equus Beds Aquifer Storage Recharge and Recovery Project (ASR), Harvey, Sedgwick, and Reno counties, Kansas is proposed. The ASR project is part of Wichita's Integrated Local Water Supply Plan and would pump water from the Little Arkansas River basin into the region's Equus Beds Aquifer for storage and later re-use. When completed, the ASR project would become the Equus Beds Division of the Bureau of Reclamation's Wichita Project. The Equus Beds aquifer lies under about 900,000 acres in six Kansas counties, but the project would cover only a small part of this area in northern Sedgwick and southern Harvey counties. The Equus Beds Well Field provided 60 percent of the city's water through 1992 and since that time the percentage has decreased to 32 percent. The proposed action is for Reclamation to help fund the 100 million gallons per day ASR project, which would draw water from the river, pretreat it, and recharge the aquifer in phases. Sixty percent of the water would come from surface water intakes, the rest from diversion wells installed along the river bank. Three recharge basins and 99 recharge recovery wells connected by pipelines would recharge the aquifer. Water would also be pumped directly from the river intakes. Two alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the Bureau of Reclamation would provide up to 25 percent of project costs or $30 million (indexed to 2003), whichever is less, to fund and implement the remaining phases of the project. The city has completed Phase I and is at work on Phase IIa and is requesting federal help for phases IIb, III, and IV. Total cost of construction of the project would be more than $500 million, including $27 million already spent on Phase I and $250 million estimated to be spent during phase II. Under the No Action alternative, the city would proceed with construction and operation of the ASR project without federal reimbursement. This alternative would have the same facilities built in the same sequence for the same construction and operation and maintenance costs as the preferred alternative, but with the city providing 100 percent of the construction, operation and maintenance costs of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Completion of the ASR project would allow Wichita to meet average daily water demands until 2050. The ASR would provide a safe and reliable municipal and industrial water supply by preventing the continuing decline of water levels in the Equus Beds aquifer. Base flow should increase in both the Arkansas and Little Arkansas rivers, and greater flows should improve aquatic habitat. Aquifer storage should help reduce impacts from evaporation and quality degradation. The ASR project should increase water levels in the aquifer to near historic levels and help to slow saltwater degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities would cause minor changes to surface geology, except in the case of recharge basins, where the removal of topsoils would be permanent. About 266 acres of soils and 65 acres of prime farmland would be permanently disturbed by construction of pre-treatment plants and other facilities. Project costs per customer under the No Action alternative (no federal funding) could raise environmental justice issues related to standards for maximum household payment capability for water. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 109-299 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090422, 196 pages, CD-ROM, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-29 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Rivers KW - Salinity Control KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Arkansas River KW - Kansas KW - Little Arkansas River KW - Public Law 109-299, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826791; 14131-090427_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The disposition of Bureau of Mines property within the Twin Cities Research Center main campus in Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed. The 27-acre Center Campus, which encompasses 11 buildings, lies near the intersection of State Highway (SH) 62 and SH 55. The buildings, some of which are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant, was used as a storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the north-central portion of the country. Three historic districts and a national historic landmark overlap in the area of the Center. The authorities administering the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) have been designated by Congress to lead public planning to address the disposition of this federal property, which is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA. Congress closed the Center in 1995. The current environmental analysis considers the guidelines of the MNRRA's comprehensive management plan and the rules applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives include: Alternative B, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions; Alternative C, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions; and Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention either with or without conditions being placed on the transfer. The three action alternatives are analyzed by applying three land-use scenarios to each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by the recipient. The scenarios address open space and park uses of the area, use of the center as a training center and/or office park, and emphasizing the interpretation of the natural and historical resources within the site and its surrounding area. The preferred land use scenario is open space and park. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regulated disposal of the Center would allow for its future uses to cohere with the management planning of the MNRRA and the historic values that surround and overlap the site. New developments would replace a blighted and disused federal government property with economically and ecologically viable facilities and land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition or alteration of buildings on the site would disturb and/or destroy sites of significant historic value in the history of mineral resources development in the upper Midwest. LEGAL MANDATES: Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996 (P.L. 104-99) and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134). JF - EPA number: 090427, Volume I--394 pages, Volume II: Appendices--426 pages, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: FES-09-35 KW - Buildings KW - Cost Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area KW - Minnesota KW - Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996, Compliance KW - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826632; 14131-090427_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The disposition of Bureau of Mines property within the Twin Cities Research Center main campus in Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed. The 27-acre Center Campus, which encompasses 11 buildings, lies near the intersection of State Highway (SH) 62 and SH 55. The buildings, some of which are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant, was used as a storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the north-central portion of the country. Three historic districts and a national historic landmark overlap in the area of the Center. The authorities administering the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) have been designated by Congress to lead public planning to address the disposition of this federal property, which is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA. Congress closed the Center in 1995. The current environmental analysis considers the guidelines of the MNRRA's comprehensive management plan and the rules applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives include: Alternative B, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions; Alternative C, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions; and Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention either with or without conditions being placed on the transfer. The three action alternatives are analyzed by applying three land-use scenarios to each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by the recipient. The scenarios address open space and park uses of the area, use of the center as a training center and/or office park, and emphasizing the interpretation of the natural and historical resources within the site and its surrounding area. The preferred land use scenario is open space and park. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regulated disposal of the Center would allow for its future uses to cohere with the management planning of the MNRRA and the historic values that surround and overlap the site. New developments would replace a blighted and disused federal government property with economically and ecologically viable facilities and land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition or alteration of buildings on the site would disturb and/or destroy sites of significant historic value in the history of mineral resources development in the upper Midwest. LEGAL MANDATES: Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996 (P.L. 104-99) and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134). JF - EPA number: 090427, Volume I--394 pages, Volume II: Appendices--426 pages, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: FES-09-35 KW - Buildings KW - Cost Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area KW - Minnesota KW - Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996, Compliance KW - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826621; 14131-090427_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The disposition of Bureau of Mines property within the Twin Cities Research Center main campus in Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed. The 27-acre Center Campus, which encompasses 11 buildings, lies near the intersection of State Highway (SH) 62 and SH 55. The buildings, some of which are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant, was used as a storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the north-central portion of the country. Three historic districts and a national historic landmark overlap in the area of the Center. The authorities administering the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) have been designated by Congress to lead public planning to address the disposition of this federal property, which is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA. Congress closed the Center in 1995. The current environmental analysis considers the guidelines of the MNRRA's comprehensive management plan and the rules applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives include: Alternative B, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions; Alternative C, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions; and Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention either with or without conditions being placed on the transfer. The three action alternatives are analyzed by applying three land-use scenarios to each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by the recipient. The scenarios address open space and park uses of the area, use of the center as a training center and/or office park, and emphasizing the interpretation of the natural and historical resources within the site and its surrounding area. The preferred land use scenario is open space and park. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regulated disposal of the Center would allow for its future uses to cohere with the management planning of the MNRRA and the historic values that surround and overlap the site. New developments would replace a blighted and disused federal government property with economically and ecologically viable facilities and land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition or alteration of buildings on the site would disturb and/or destroy sites of significant historic value in the history of mineral resources development in the upper Midwest. LEGAL MANDATES: Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996 (P.L. 104-99) and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134). JF - EPA number: 090427, Volume I--394 pages, Volume II: Appendices--426 pages, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: FES-09-35 KW - Buildings KW - Cost Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area KW - Minnesota KW - Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996, Compliance KW - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 756826409; 14131-090427_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The disposition of Bureau of Mines property within the Twin Cities Research Center main campus in Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed. The 27-acre Center Campus, which encompasses 11 buildings, lies near the intersection of State Highway (SH) 62 and SH 55. The buildings, some of which are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant, was used as a storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the north-central portion of the country. Three historic districts and a national historic landmark overlap in the area of the Center. The authorities administering the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) have been designated by Congress to lead public planning to address the disposition of this federal property, which is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA. Congress closed the Center in 1995. The current environmental analysis considers the guidelines of the MNRRA's comprehensive management plan and the rules applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives include: Alternative B, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions; Alternative C, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions; and Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention either with or without conditions being placed on the transfer. The three action alternatives are analyzed by applying three land-use scenarios to each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by the recipient. The scenarios address open space and park uses of the area, use of the center as a training center and/or office park, and emphasizing the interpretation of the natural and historical resources within the site and its surrounding area. The preferred land use scenario is open space and park. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regulated disposal of the Center would allow for its future uses to cohere with the management planning of the MNRRA and the historic values that surround and overlap the site. New developments would replace a blighted and disused federal government property with economically and ecologically viable facilities and land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition or alteration of buildings on the site would disturb and/or destroy sites of significant historic value in the history of mineral resources development in the upper Midwest. LEGAL MANDATES: Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996 (P.L. 104-99) and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134). JF - EPA number: 090427, Volume I--394 pages, Volume II: Appendices--426 pages, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: FES-09-35 KW - Buildings KW - Cost Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area KW - Minnesota KW - Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996, Compliance KW - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSITION OF BUREAU OF MINES PROPERTY, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER MAIN CAMPUS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 16394979; 14131 AB - PURPOSE: The disposition of Bureau of Mines property within the Twin Cities Research Center main campus in Hennepin County, Minnesota is proposed. The 27-acre Center Campus, which encompasses 11 buildings, lies near the intersection of State Highway (SH) 62 and SH 55. The buildings, some of which are in various stages of disrepair and are mostly vacant, was used as a storage facility for cores drilled by private companies in their assessments of mineral deposits, primarily in the north-central portion of the country. Three historic districts and a national historic landmark overlap in the area of the Center. The authorities administering the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) have been designated by Congress to lead public planning to address the disposition of this federal property, which is located on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River and is within the boundaries of the MNRRA. Congress closed the Center in 1995. The current environmental analysis considers the guidelines of the MNRRA's comprehensive management plan and the rules applied to the geographic area of the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives include: Alternative B, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity without conditions; Alternative C, transfer of the Center to a university or nonfederal government entity with conditions; and Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, modification of the Center property prior to transfer or retention either with or without conditions being placed on the transfer. The three action alternatives are analyzed by applying three land-use scenarios to each. The land-use scenarios demonstrate a range of potential land uses that could be implemented by the recipient. The scenarios address open space and park uses of the area, use of the center as a training center and/or office park, and emphasizing the interpretation of the natural and historical resources within the site and its surrounding area. The preferred land use scenario is open space and park. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regulated disposal of the Center would allow for its future uses to cohere with the management planning of the MNRRA and the historic values that surround and overlap the site. New developments would replace a blighted and disused federal government property with economically and ecologically viable facilities and land uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Demolition or alteration of buildings on the site would disturb and/or destroy sites of significant historic value in the history of mineral resources development in the upper Midwest. LEGAL MANDATES: Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996 (P.L. 104-99) and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134). JF - EPA number: 090427, Volume I--394 pages, Volume II: Appendices--426 pages, December 4, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: FES-09-35 KW - Buildings KW - Cost Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - National Parks KW - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area KW - Minnesota KW - Balanced Budget Downpayment Act I of 1996, Compliance KW - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=DISPOSITION+OF+BUREAU+OF+MINES+PROPERTY%2C+TWIN+CITIES+RESEARCH+CENTER+MAIN+CAMPUS%2C+HENNEPIN+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826803; 14118-090414_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from Tropic extending approximately 30 miles west to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah are proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past 5 years and has caused an overloading of the 69 kV transmission line that currently serves the area and a decrease in the reliability of the electrical system. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line route which would adjoin an existing transmission line through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) and Cedar Fork Canyon in Dixie National Forest (DNF); turn west to cross Johns Valley; pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport; cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench; and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. The project would include removal and reclamation of a portion of the existing 69 kV transmission line west of the Bryce substation. Implementation would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative D) and two action alternatives. Alternative B would involve construction of a parallel 69 kV transmission line which would roughly correspond to the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. Alternative C would involve construction along an alternate Cedar Fork Canyon southern route. The preferred alternative is Alternative C modified by combining components from the East-West Interconnect option and Alternative A. The total length of the preferred route would be 29.41 miles. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69 kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide 3.68-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and the presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. Under Alternatives A and B, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of leks would affect the greater sage grouse. Alternative B would cause disturbance of habitat for bald eagles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090414, 615 pages and maps, December 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826696; 14118-090414_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from Tropic extending approximately 30 miles west to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah are proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past 5 years and has caused an overloading of the 69 kV transmission line that currently serves the area and a decrease in the reliability of the electrical system. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line route which would adjoin an existing transmission line through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) and Cedar Fork Canyon in Dixie National Forest (DNF); turn west to cross Johns Valley; pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport; cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench; and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. The project would include removal and reclamation of a portion of the existing 69 kV transmission line west of the Bryce substation. Implementation would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative D) and two action alternatives. Alternative B would involve construction of a parallel 69 kV transmission line which would roughly correspond to the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. Alternative C would involve construction along an alternate Cedar Fork Canyon southern route. The preferred alternative is Alternative C modified by combining components from the East-West Interconnect option and Alternative A. The total length of the preferred route would be 29.41 miles. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69 kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide 3.68-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and the presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. Under Alternatives A and B, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of leks would affect the greater sage grouse. Alternative B would cause disturbance of habitat for bald eagles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090414, 615 pages and maps, December 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826546; 14118-090414_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from Tropic extending approximately 30 miles west to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah are proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past 5 years and has caused an overloading of the 69 kV transmission line that currently serves the area and a decrease in the reliability of the electrical system. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line route which would adjoin an existing transmission line through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) and Cedar Fork Canyon in Dixie National Forest (DNF); turn west to cross Johns Valley; pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport; cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench; and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. The project would include removal and reclamation of a portion of the existing 69 kV transmission line west of the Bryce substation. Implementation would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative D) and two action alternatives. Alternative B would involve construction of a parallel 69 kV transmission line which would roughly correspond to the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. Alternative C would involve construction along an alternate Cedar Fork Canyon southern route. The preferred alternative is Alternative C modified by combining components from the East-West Interconnect option and Alternative A. The total length of the preferred route would be 29.41 miles. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69 kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide 3.68-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and the presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. Under Alternatives A and B, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of leks would affect the greater sage grouse. Alternative B would cause disturbance of habitat for bald eagles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090414, 615 pages and maps, December 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 756826352; 14118-090414_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from Tropic extending approximately 30 miles west to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah are proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past 5 years and has caused an overloading of the 69 kV transmission line that currently serves the area and a decrease in the reliability of the electrical system. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line route which would adjoin an existing transmission line through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) and Cedar Fork Canyon in Dixie National Forest (DNF); turn west to cross Johns Valley; pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport; cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench; and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. The project would include removal and reclamation of a portion of the existing 69 kV transmission line west of the Bryce substation. Implementation would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative D) and two action alternatives. Alternative B would involve construction of a parallel 69 kV transmission line which would roughly correspond to the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. Alternative C would involve construction along an alternate Cedar Fork Canyon southern route. The preferred alternative is Alternative C modified by combining components from the East-West Interconnect option and Alternative A. The total length of the preferred route would be 29.41 miles. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69 kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide 3.68-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and the presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. Under Alternatives A and B, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of leks would affect the greater sage grouse. Alternative B would cause disturbance of habitat for bald eagles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090414, 615 pages and maps, December 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TROPIC TO HATCH 138KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 16382494; 14118 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 138-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from Tropic extending approximately 30 miles west to Hatch, Garfield County, Utah are proposed. Garkane Energy Cooperative (Garkane) delivers electrical service to more than 11,000 customers in northern Arizona and southern Utah, including Hatch and Tropic. Population growth in Garfield and Kane counties has resulted in a 66 percent increase in Garkanes electrical demand during the past 5 years and has caused an overloading of the 69 kV transmission line that currently serves the area and a decrease in the reliability of the electrical system. Garkane has filed applications for special use permits and/or rights-of-way grants for the proposed transmission line route which would adjoin an existing transmission line through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) and Cedar Fork Canyon in Dixie National Forest (DNF); turn west to cross Johns Valley; pass north of the Bryce Canyon Airport; cross State Route 12 and Johnson Bench; and pass south of Wilson Peak. From there it would traverse down Hillsdale Canyon, cross the Sunset Cliffs, and traverse west to the Hatch Substation. The project would include removal and reclamation of a portion of the existing 69 kV transmission line west of the Bryce substation. Implementation would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative A), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative D) and two action alternatives. Alternative B would involve construction of a parallel 69 kV transmission line which would roughly correspond to the existing 69 kV transmission line right-of-way. Alternative C would involve construction along an alternate Cedar Fork Canyon southern route. The preferred alternative is Alternative C modified by combining components from the East-West Interconnect option and Alternative A. The total length of the preferred route would be 29.41 miles. Approximately 16.23 miles of the existing 69 kV transmission line infrastructure from the Bryce Canyon Substation to the Hatch Mountain Substation would be removed. The preferred alternative would also require the amendment of the GSENM management plan by changing the designation of a 300-foot wide 3.68-mile long stretch (133.74 acres) of the primitive zone to passage zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide cost-effective electrical transmission capacity to meet present and future demand west of Tropic and in the Hatch area. The new capacity would eliminate the need for routine use of back-up diesel generators and would improve reliability of the electrical system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and the presence of roads and a transmission line could impact the natural characteristics and wilderness values of distinctive land areas including inventoried roadless areas, wilderness study areas, recommended wilderness areas, primitive zones, and the Bryce Canyon Lodge National Historic Landmark. Under Alternatives A and B, habitat fragmentation and disturbance of leks would affect the greater sage grouse. Alternative B would cause disturbance of habitat for bald eagles. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090414, 615 pages and maps, December 3, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bryce Canyon National Park KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument KW - Utah KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TROPIC+TO+HATCH+138KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cedar City, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826938; 14115-090411_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a land and resource management plan (RMP) for 63,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA), located in central California, is proposed. The planning area includes a portion of southern San Benito County and a portion of western Fresno County as well as three major watersheds. The majority of the area is dominated by the serpentine soil formation known as the New Idria formation, which is characterized by sparse vegetation, large barren complexes, and a unique forest of foothill, Jeffrey, and Coulter pine. Since 1984, approximately 30,000 acres of serpentine soils high in asbestos fibers within the CCMA have been designated as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) to protect public health and safety. The planning area has been managed in accordance with a 1984 RMP which has been amended several times to address new issues, but the plan and amendments are generally outdated. Key issues which emerged during the scoping process include those related to: chrysotile asbestos and risks to human health from exposure; motorized and non-motorized recreation access; special status species; potential land acquisition and disposal; wildfire management; mineral development; and impacts on watersheds, water quality, and air quality. Seven land use management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are presented in this draft EIS. Five of the alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) would entail motorized public access in the ACEC. Alternative F would restrict public access in the ACEC to non-motorized travel only, and Alternative G would minimize public health risk by prohibiting all public access and entry into the ACEC. Route miles closed in the ACEC would vary by alternative from zero to 227 miles. BLM selected a combination of management actions from the range of alternatives using a menu approach to assemble preferred measures to minimize asbestos exposure, reduce airborne asbestos emissions, and promote outreach and education to inform public land users of health risks. Of the action alternatives, Alternative E represents BLM's preferred management approach to recreation and travel management in the CCMA as it would provide alternate routes for access to public lands surrounding the ACEC that would not require the public to drive through the ACEC and would create additional recreation opportunities in surrounding management zones. Limited annual visitor use days would still allow for the public to experience the scenic, biological, cultural and geologic features of the ACEC within acceptable risk range for exposure to asbestos, and with less BLM infrastructure and support needs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would limit land use that would create high levels of asbestos emissions, create increased opportunity for human exposure to asbestos, and create a need to conduct intensive management in areas with high concentrations of asbestos. Public land hazards related to abandoned mines would be eliminated or mitigated. Prescribed fires would increase nutrients in soils, improve habitat for desired vegetation species, and increase habitat available for forage and browsing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Travel restrictions would have an impact on recreation use, with Alternatives E, F and G having the greatest impacts to off-highway vehicle users and motor vehicle users. Prohibitions under Alternative G would impact hikers, hunters, and campers. Grazing restrictions under Alternatives F and G would have adverse impacts on four to seven grazing operations and would increase density of vegetation and fine fuels in allotments which would have a negative impact on fire management in the CCMA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090411, 735--pages and maps, November 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-028+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Land Management KW - Mines KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Clear Creek Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826740; 14115-090411_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a land and resource management plan (RMP) for 63,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA), located in central California, is proposed. The planning area includes a portion of southern San Benito County and a portion of western Fresno County as well as three major watersheds. The majority of the area is dominated by the serpentine soil formation known as the New Idria formation, which is characterized by sparse vegetation, large barren complexes, and a unique forest of foothill, Jeffrey, and Coulter pine. Since 1984, approximately 30,000 acres of serpentine soils high in asbestos fibers within the CCMA have been designated as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) to protect public health and safety. The planning area has been managed in accordance with a 1984 RMP which has been amended several times to address new issues, but the plan and amendments are generally outdated. Key issues which emerged during the scoping process include those related to: chrysotile asbestos and risks to human health from exposure; motorized and non-motorized recreation access; special status species; potential land acquisition and disposal; wildfire management; mineral development; and impacts on watersheds, water quality, and air quality. Seven land use management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are presented in this draft EIS. Five of the alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) would entail motorized public access in the ACEC. Alternative F would restrict public access in the ACEC to non-motorized travel only, and Alternative G would minimize public health risk by prohibiting all public access and entry into the ACEC. Route miles closed in the ACEC would vary by alternative from zero to 227 miles. BLM selected a combination of management actions from the range of alternatives using a menu approach to assemble preferred measures to minimize asbestos exposure, reduce airborne asbestos emissions, and promote outreach and education to inform public land users of health risks. Of the action alternatives, Alternative E represents BLM's preferred management approach to recreation and travel management in the CCMA as it would provide alternate routes for access to public lands surrounding the ACEC that would not require the public to drive through the ACEC and would create additional recreation opportunities in surrounding management zones. Limited annual visitor use days would still allow for the public to experience the scenic, biological, cultural and geologic features of the ACEC within acceptable risk range for exposure to asbestos, and with less BLM infrastructure and support needs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would limit land use that would create high levels of asbestos emissions, create increased opportunity for human exposure to asbestos, and create a need to conduct intensive management in areas with high concentrations of asbestos. Public land hazards related to abandoned mines would be eliminated or mitigated. Prescribed fires would increase nutrients in soils, improve habitat for desired vegetation species, and increase habitat available for forage and browsing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Travel restrictions would have an impact on recreation use, with Alternatives E, F and G having the greatest impacts to off-highway vehicle users and motor vehicle users. Prohibitions under Alternative G would impact hikers, hunters, and campers. Grazing restrictions under Alternatives F and G would have adverse impacts on four to seven grazing operations and would increase density of vegetation and fine fuels in allotments which would have a negative impact on fire management in the CCMA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090411, 735--pages and maps, November 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-028+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Land Management KW - Mines KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Clear Creek Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826441; 14115-090411_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a land and resource management plan (RMP) for 63,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA), located in central California, is proposed. The planning area includes a portion of southern San Benito County and a portion of western Fresno County as well as three major watersheds. The majority of the area is dominated by the serpentine soil formation known as the New Idria formation, which is characterized by sparse vegetation, large barren complexes, and a unique forest of foothill, Jeffrey, and Coulter pine. Since 1984, approximately 30,000 acres of serpentine soils high in asbestos fibers within the CCMA have been designated as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) to protect public health and safety. The planning area has been managed in accordance with a 1984 RMP which has been amended several times to address new issues, but the plan and amendments are generally outdated. Key issues which emerged during the scoping process include those related to: chrysotile asbestos and risks to human health from exposure; motorized and non-motorized recreation access; special status species; potential land acquisition and disposal; wildfire management; mineral development; and impacts on watersheds, water quality, and air quality. Seven land use management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are presented in this draft EIS. Five of the alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) would entail motorized public access in the ACEC. Alternative F would restrict public access in the ACEC to non-motorized travel only, and Alternative G would minimize public health risk by prohibiting all public access and entry into the ACEC. Route miles closed in the ACEC would vary by alternative from zero to 227 miles. BLM selected a combination of management actions from the range of alternatives using a menu approach to assemble preferred measures to minimize asbestos exposure, reduce airborne asbestos emissions, and promote outreach and education to inform public land users of health risks. Of the action alternatives, Alternative E represents BLM's preferred management approach to recreation and travel management in the CCMA as it would provide alternate routes for access to public lands surrounding the ACEC that would not require the public to drive through the ACEC and would create additional recreation opportunities in surrounding management zones. Limited annual visitor use days would still allow for the public to experience the scenic, biological, cultural and geologic features of the ACEC within acceptable risk range for exposure to asbestos, and with less BLM infrastructure and support needs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would limit land use that would create high levels of asbestos emissions, create increased opportunity for human exposure to asbestos, and create a need to conduct intensive management in areas with high concentrations of asbestos. Public land hazards related to abandoned mines would be eliminated or mitigated. Prescribed fires would increase nutrients in soils, improve habitat for desired vegetation species, and increase habitat available for forage and browsing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Travel restrictions would have an impact on recreation use, with Alternatives E, F and G having the greatest impacts to off-highway vehicle users and motor vehicle users. Prohibitions under Alternative G would impact hikers, hunters, and campers. Grazing restrictions under Alternatives F and G would have adverse impacts on four to seven grazing operations and would increase density of vegetation and fine fuels in allotments which would have a negative impact on fire management in the CCMA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090411, 735--pages and maps, November 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-028+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Land Management KW - Mines KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Clear Creek Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16394860; 14115 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a land and resource management plan (RMP) for 63,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA), located in central California, is proposed. The planning area includes a portion of southern San Benito County and a portion of western Fresno County as well as three major watersheds. The majority of the area is dominated by the serpentine soil formation known as the New Idria formation, which is characterized by sparse vegetation, large barren complexes, and a unique forest of foothill, Jeffrey, and Coulter pine. Since 1984, approximately 30,000 acres of serpentine soils high in asbestos fibers within the CCMA have been designated as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) to protect public health and safety. The planning area has been managed in accordance with a 1984 RMP which has been amended several times to address new issues, but the plan and amendments are generally outdated. Key issues which emerged during the scoping process include those related to: chrysotile asbestos and risks to human health from exposure; motorized and non-motorized recreation access; special status species; potential land acquisition and disposal; wildfire management; mineral development; and impacts on watersheds, water quality, and air quality. Seven land use management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are presented in this draft EIS. Five of the alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) would entail motorized public access in the ACEC. Alternative F would restrict public access in the ACEC to non-motorized travel only, and Alternative G would minimize public health risk by prohibiting all public access and entry into the ACEC. Route miles closed in the ACEC would vary by alternative from zero to 227 miles. BLM selected a combination of management actions from the range of alternatives using a menu approach to assemble preferred measures to minimize asbestos exposure, reduce airborne asbestos emissions, and promote outreach and education to inform public land users of health risks. Of the action alternatives, Alternative E represents BLM's preferred management approach to recreation and travel management in the CCMA as it would provide alternate routes for access to public lands surrounding the ACEC that would not require the public to drive through the ACEC and would create additional recreation opportunities in surrounding management zones. Limited annual visitor use days would still allow for the public to experience the scenic, biological, cultural and geologic features of the ACEC within acceptable risk range for exposure to asbestos, and with less BLM infrastructure and support needs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would limit land use that would create high levels of asbestos emissions, create increased opportunity for human exposure to asbestos, and create a need to conduct intensive management in areas with high concentrations of asbestos. Public land hazards related to abandoned mines would be eliminated or mitigated. Prescribed fires would increase nutrients in soils, improve habitat for desired vegetation species, and increase habitat available for forage and browsing. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Travel restrictions would have an impact on recreation use, with Alternatives E, F and G having the greatest impacts to off-highway vehicle users and motor vehicle users. Prohibitions under Alternative G would impact hikers, hunters, and campers. Grazing restrictions under Alternatives F and G would have adverse impacts on four to seven grazing operations and would increase density of vegetation and fine fuels in allotments which would have a negative impact on fire management in the CCMA. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090411, 735--pages and maps, November 25, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-028+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Land Management KW - Mines KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Clear Creek Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16394860?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826758; 14114-090410_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004 and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090410, 980 pages and maps, November 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-54 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826753; 14114-090410_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004 and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090410, 980 pages and maps, November 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-54 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826511; 14114-090410_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004 and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090410, 980 pages and maps, November 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-54 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826502; 14114-090410_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004 and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090410, 980 pages and maps, November 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-54 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MORMON ISLAND AUXILIARY DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT, FOLSOM DAM SAFETY AND FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND EL DORADO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16392812; 14114 AB - PURPOSE: Changes to proposed dam safety modifications for Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD), Sacramento and El Dorado counties, California are proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation has multiple authorized projects addressing hydrologic, seismic, static, and flood management issues at Folsom Dam and its appurtenant structures on the American River. The Folsom Facility is comprised of the main dam on the mainstream of the American River to retain and release water contained within the Folsom Reservoir, two wing dams flanking the main dam to contain water within the reservoir, the MIAD to retain water at the location of a historic river channel, and eight earthen dikes to contain water when the reservoir is at or near capacity. Modifications were originally selected for MIAD in the March 2007 final EIS for the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project. The preferred MIAD alternative of jet grouting originally selected was determined to be technically and economically infeasible. The study area includes federal property surrounding MIAD and directly south of Green Valley Road in the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve area. It also includes 141 acres of land at Mississippi Bar on the western shore of Lake Natoma. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft supplemental EIS. The MIAD modifications would occur in two phases: 1) foundation treatment on the downstream side of MIAD would involve removal and replacement of foundation materials; and 2) placement of an overlay with drains and filters. The action alternatives differ only in their method of foundation excavation. Specifically, differences would involve the use of structural walls during excavation to reduce the construction risk, amount of construction water handling, excavated footprint exposure, and environmental impacts. Alternative 1 would use large, open-cut excavation while Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would use open cut with single wall, dual wall, and cellular construction (multiple walls), respectively. Construction duration would be 16 months to 38 months dependent on funding, reservoir conditions, and materials supply. All four action alternatives would also include up to 80 acres of habitat mitigation for Mississippi Bar to address impacts from the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce seismic and static risks associated with MIAD to improve flood control and public safety. Habitat mitigation at Mississippi Bar would create new recreation opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Significant and unavoidable impacts from emissions of nitrogen oxides would occur. Construction activities would increase ambient noise levels. Relocation of Green Valley Road under Alternative 1 would disrupt traffic and temporarily alter the visual character of the area, including the Mormon Island Wetland Preserve. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004 and Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090410, 980 pages and maps, November 24, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-54 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MORMON+ISLAND+AUXILIARY+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT%2C+FOLSOM+DAM+SAFETY+AND+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+EL+DORADO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BENEFITS-SHARING [FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS]. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - BENEFITS-SHARING [FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS]. AN - 756826839; 14103-090399_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Clarification of the rights and responsibilities of National Park Service (NPS) researchers and management in connection with the use of valuable discoveries, inventions, and other developments that result from research involving specimens lawfully collected from units of the National Park System is proposed. Currently, the NPS rules on intellectual property do not require benefits-sharing, which refers to agreements that could occur between the NPS and researchers studying NPS research specimens. Under the current scheme researchers are barred from collecting research specimens in the National Park System if their studies might result in commercially viable products. The commercial use or sale of research specimens themselves is prohibited by regulation. However, the commercial use of knowledge derived from specimens via research is not prohibited. Commercial use of research results has, in the past, been left entirely up to the researchers without involvement from the NPS and without any further obligation or responsibilities to the NPS. Essentially, the purpose of this servicewide programmatic EIS is to examine the possible NPS administrative effects of implementing certain types of contracts. The rule change would apply to all of the approximately 400 NPS units. Under the proposed scheme, the benefits-sharing agreements, known as cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs), would be arranged only with researchers who already hold NPS research permits. The agreements would not authorize or regulate specimen collection or any other research activities in the park. Researchers would still have to apply for an NPS Scientific Research and Collection Permit, and park authorities would continue to evaluate each such application individually in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and NPS policies and regulations that protect park visitors and resources. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), this final EIS considers the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current policy, and an alternative that would prohibit research specimen collection for any commercially-related research purposes (Alternative C). Alternative B is further broken down into three options. The preferred option would allow benefits-sharing and the option for disclosure of all terms and conditions to the public. However, royalty rates and related financial information could be identified by CRADA participants as confidential business proprietary information and withheld from the public. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to NPS natural resource management, NPS visitor experience and enjoyment, impacts on the research community, and impacts on NPS administrative operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Benefits-sharing agreements could return benefits to the affected park if the results of a scientist's research lead to the development of a commercially viable product or service. The new rule would clarify the relationship between researchers and park administrators. The proposed action would identify the role of the NPS in the event a researcher wished to commercialize his or her research results involving study of NPS research specimens; strengthen conservation and protection of resources managed by the NPS by deepening the understanding of biodiversity and physical and biological processes; and ensure that the NPS research permitting process is independent, objective, and unaffected by the proposed action. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some interested parties and members of the public would consider the withholding of proprietary information from full publication would result in the use of public resources without an appropriate return of the resulting benefits to the public good. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Technology Transfer Act, Freedom of Information Act, and National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. JF - EPA number: 090399, 606 pages, November 16, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FES 09-33 KW - Economic Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Federal Technology Transfer Act, Compliance KW - Freedom of Information Act, Compliance KW - National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BENEFITS-SHARING+.&rft.title=BENEFITS-SHARING+.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 16, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BENEFITS-SHARING [FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS]. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - BENEFITS-SHARING [FOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS]. AN - 756826442; 14103-090399_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Clarification of the rights and responsibilities of National Park Service (NPS) researchers and management in connection with the use of valuable discoveries, inventions, and other developments that result from research involving specimens lawfully collected from units of the National Park System is proposed. Currently, the NPS rules on intellectual property do not require benefits-sharing, which refers to agreements that could occur between the NPS and researchers studying NPS research specimens. Under the current scheme researchers are barred from collecting research specimens in the National Park System if their studies might result in commercially viable products. The commercial use or sale of research specimens themselves is prohibited by regulation. However, the commercial use of knowledge derived from specimens via research is not prohibited. Commercial use of research results has, in the past, been left entirely up to the researchers without involvement from the NPS and without any further obligation or responsibilities to the NPS. Essentially, the purpose of this servicewide programmatic EIS is to examine the possible NPS administrative effects of implementing certain types of contracts. The rule change would apply to all of the approximately 400 NPS units. Under the proposed scheme, the benefits-sharing agreements, known as cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs), would be arranged only with researchers who already hold NPS research permits. The agreements would not authorize or regulate specimen collection or any other research activities in the park. Researchers would still have to apply for an NPS Scientific Research and Collection Permit, and park authorities would continue to evaluate each such application individually in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and NPS policies and regulations that protect park visitors and resources. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), this final EIS considers the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current policy, and an alternative that would prohibit research specimen collection for any commercially-related research purposes (Alternative C). Alternative B is further broken down into three options. The preferred option would allow benefits-sharing and the option for disclosure of all terms and conditions to the public. However, royalty rates and related financial information could be identified by CRADA participants as confidential business proprietary information and withheld from the public. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to NPS natural resource management, NPS visitor experience and enjoyment, impacts on the research community, and impacts on NPS administrative operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Benefits-sharing agreements could return benefits to the affected park if the results of a scientist's research lead to the development of a commercially viable product or service. The new rule would clarify the relationship between researchers and park administrators. The proposed action would identify the role of the NPS in the event a researcher wished to commercialize his or her research results involving study of NPS research specimens; strengthen conservation and protection of resources managed by the NPS by deepening the understanding of biodiversity and physical and biological processes; and ensure that the NPS research permitting process is independent, objective, and unaffected by the proposed action. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some interested parties and members of the public would consider the withholding of proprietary information from full publication would result in the use of public resources without an appropriate return of the resulting benefits to the public good. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Technology Transfer Act, Freedom of Information Act, and National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. JF - EPA number: 090399, 606 pages, November 16, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FES 09-33 KW - Economic Assessments KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Federal Technology Transfer Act, Compliance KW - Freedom of Information Act, Compliance KW - National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BENEFITS-SHARING+.&rft.title=BENEFITS-SHARING+.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 16, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826727; 14091-090387_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826652; 14090-090386_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station (ISEGS) project, a solar concentrating thermal electricity generation facility, in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. BrightSource Energy, Inc., through the limited liability corporations Solar Partners I, II, IV, and VIII, has applied for four right-of-way grants from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the ISEGS project that would occupy 4,073 acres of public land, use approximately 100 acre feet of water per year, produce a nominal 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and operate for a term of 50 years. The project would be constructed as three individual power plants that share a common administration building, and a shared construction logistics area. The solar power tower project would include seven 469-foot tall power towers and installation of 214,000 heliostats (mirrors) surrounding the power towers. Each of the three power plants would contain a power block with a steam turbine generator. The solar heat used in the boiler (steam) heat process would be supplemented by burning natural gas to heat a partial load steam boiler when solar conditions are insufficient. The power towers would incorporate dry cooling technology to minimize use of groundwater. Generator interconnection lines would tie each power plant into a new substation and the Southern California Edison transmission lines passing through the project boundary. The first two phases of the project, Ivanpah 1 and 2, would provide 100 MW of electricity and would occupy 914 acres and 921 acres respectively; the 200 MW phase, Ivanpah 3, would occupy 1,836 acres. Shared facilities would occupy an additional 25 acres and linear facilities, including the re-routing of Coliseum Road, and natural gas, water, and transmission lines would require an additional 56 acres. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS analyzes a No Project/No Action Alternative and 22 additional alternatives which include alternative sites, technologies, and conservation/demand-side management. BLM has concluded that none of the alternative locations or technologies analyzed would meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and has eliminated them from further consideration. This draft EIS also evaluates a proposed amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan, which would identify the ISEGS project within the plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The ISEGS project would have major impacts to the biological resources of the Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat. Approximately 4,073 acres of occupied desert tortoise habitat would be permanently lost and translocation of individuals would require endangered species "take" authorization. Other species that could be impacted include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Crissal thrasher, golden eagle, and American badger. Eight special-status plant species would be directly impacted by construction and impacts to Mojave milkweed and Rusby's desert-mallow would remain significant even after implementation of proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values in the Ivanpah Valley and Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090386, 1,249 pages, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-46 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826349; 14090-090386_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station (ISEGS) project, a solar concentrating thermal electricity generation facility, in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. BrightSource Energy, Inc., through the limited liability corporations Solar Partners I, II, IV, and VIII, has applied for four right-of-way grants from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the ISEGS project that would occupy 4,073 acres of public land, use approximately 100 acre feet of water per year, produce a nominal 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and operate for a term of 50 years. The project would be constructed as three individual power plants that share a common administration building, and a shared construction logistics area. The solar power tower project would include seven 469-foot tall power towers and installation of 214,000 heliostats (mirrors) surrounding the power towers. Each of the three power plants would contain a power block with a steam turbine generator. The solar heat used in the boiler (steam) heat process would be supplemented by burning natural gas to heat a partial load steam boiler when solar conditions are insufficient. The power towers would incorporate dry cooling technology to minimize use of groundwater. Generator interconnection lines would tie each power plant into a new substation and the Southern California Edison transmission lines passing through the project boundary. The first two phases of the project, Ivanpah 1 and 2, would provide 100 MW of electricity and would occupy 914 acres and 921 acres respectively; the 200 MW phase, Ivanpah 3, would occupy 1,836 acres. Shared facilities would occupy an additional 25 acres and linear facilities, including the re-routing of Coliseum Road, and natural gas, water, and transmission lines would require an additional 56 acres. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS analyzes a No Project/No Action Alternative and 22 additional alternatives which include alternative sites, technologies, and conservation/demand-side management. BLM has concluded that none of the alternative locations or technologies analyzed would meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and has eliminated them from further consideration. This draft EIS also evaluates a proposed amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan, which would identify the ISEGS project within the plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The ISEGS project would have major impacts to the biological resources of the Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat. Approximately 4,073 acres of occupied desert tortoise habitat would be permanently lost and translocation of individuals would require endangered species "take" authorization. Other species that could be impacted include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Crissal thrasher, golden eagle, and American badger. Eight special-status plant species would be directly impacted by construction and impacts to Mojave milkweed and Rusby's desert-mallow would remain significant even after implementation of proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values in the Ivanpah Valley and Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090386, 1,249 pages, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-46 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826342; 14090-090386_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station (ISEGS) project, a solar concentrating thermal electricity generation facility, in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. BrightSource Energy, Inc., through the limited liability corporations Solar Partners I, II, IV, and VIII, has applied for four right-of-way grants from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the ISEGS project that would occupy 4,073 acres of public land, use approximately 100 acre feet of water per year, produce a nominal 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and operate for a term of 50 years. The project would be constructed as three individual power plants that share a common administration building, and a shared construction logistics area. The solar power tower project would include seven 469-foot tall power towers and installation of 214,000 heliostats (mirrors) surrounding the power towers. Each of the three power plants would contain a power block with a steam turbine generator. The solar heat used in the boiler (steam) heat process would be supplemented by burning natural gas to heat a partial load steam boiler when solar conditions are insufficient. The power towers would incorporate dry cooling technology to minimize use of groundwater. Generator interconnection lines would tie each power plant into a new substation and the Southern California Edison transmission lines passing through the project boundary. The first two phases of the project, Ivanpah 1 and 2, would provide 100 MW of electricity and would occupy 914 acres and 921 acres respectively; the 200 MW phase, Ivanpah 3, would occupy 1,836 acres. Shared facilities would occupy an additional 25 acres and linear facilities, including the re-routing of Coliseum Road, and natural gas, water, and transmission lines would require an additional 56 acres. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS analyzes a No Project/No Action Alternative and 22 additional alternatives which include alternative sites, technologies, and conservation/demand-side management. BLM has concluded that none of the alternative locations or technologies analyzed would meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and has eliminated them from further consideration. This draft EIS also evaluates a proposed amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan, which would identify the ISEGS project within the plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The ISEGS project would have major impacts to the biological resources of the Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat. Approximately 4,073 acres of occupied desert tortoise habitat would be permanently lost and translocation of individuals would require endangered species "take" authorization. Other species that could be impacted include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Crissal thrasher, golden eagle, and American badger. Eight special-status plant species would be directly impacted by construction and impacts to Mojave milkweed and Rusby's desert-mallow would remain significant even after implementation of proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values in the Ivanpah Valley and Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090386, 1,249 pages, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-46 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826336; 14091-090387_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826335; 14091-090387_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826334; 14090-090386_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station (ISEGS) project, a solar concentrating thermal electricity generation facility, in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. BrightSource Energy, Inc., through the limited liability corporations Solar Partners I, II, IV, and VIII, has applied for four right-of-way grants from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the ISEGS project that would occupy 4,073 acres of public land, use approximately 100 acre feet of water per year, produce a nominal 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and operate for a term of 50 years. The project would be constructed as three individual power plants that share a common administration building, and a shared construction logistics area. The solar power tower project would include seven 469-foot tall power towers and installation of 214,000 heliostats (mirrors) surrounding the power towers. Each of the three power plants would contain a power block with a steam turbine generator. The solar heat used in the boiler (steam) heat process would be supplemented by burning natural gas to heat a partial load steam boiler when solar conditions are insufficient. The power towers would incorporate dry cooling technology to minimize use of groundwater. Generator interconnection lines would tie each power plant into a new substation and the Southern California Edison transmission lines passing through the project boundary. The first two phases of the project, Ivanpah 1 and 2, would provide 100 MW of electricity and would occupy 914 acres and 921 acres respectively; the 200 MW phase, Ivanpah 3, would occupy 1,836 acres. Shared facilities would occupy an additional 25 acres and linear facilities, including the re-routing of Coliseum Road, and natural gas, water, and transmission lines would require an additional 56 acres. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS analyzes a No Project/No Action Alternative and 22 additional alternatives which include alternative sites, technologies, and conservation/demand-side management. BLM has concluded that none of the alternative locations or technologies analyzed would meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and has eliminated them from further consideration. This draft EIS also evaluates a proposed amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan, which would identify the ISEGS project within the plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The ISEGS project would have major impacts to the biological resources of the Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat. Approximately 4,073 acres of occupied desert tortoise habitat would be permanently lost and translocation of individuals would require endangered species "take" authorization. Other species that could be impacted include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Crissal thrasher, golden eagle, and American badger. Eight special-status plant species would be directly impacted by construction and impacts to Mojave milkweed and Rusby's desert-mallow would remain significant even after implementation of proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values in the Ivanpah Valley and Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090386, 1,249 pages, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-46 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826324; 14091-090387_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826315; 14091-090387_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826294; 14091-090387_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 756826262; 14091-090387_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,817-acre CPNM lies in the Coast Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established in 2001, by Presidential Proclamation using authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act to: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. The proposed plan would replace the RMP of 1996. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the proposed alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Recreation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake Road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. With respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The proposed plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090387, Volume 1--918 pages, Volume 2--358 pages and maps, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-027+8300 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM (07-AFC-5) PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344854; 14090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station (ISEGS) project, a solar concentrating thermal electricity generation facility, in San Bernardino County, California are proposed. BrightSource Energy, Inc., through the limited liability corporations Solar Partners I, II, IV, and VIII, has applied for four right-of-way grants from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the ISEGS project that would occupy 4,073 acres of public land, use approximately 100 acre feet of water per year, produce a nominal 400 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and operate for a term of 50 years. The project would be constructed as three individual power plants that share a common administration building, and a shared construction logistics area. The solar power tower project would include seven 469-foot tall power towers and installation of 214,000 heliostats (mirrors) surrounding the power towers. Each of the three power plants would contain a power block with a steam turbine generator. The solar heat used in the boiler (steam) heat process would be supplemented by burning natural gas to heat a partial load steam boiler when solar conditions are insufficient. The power towers would incorporate dry cooling technology to minimize use of groundwater. Generator interconnection lines would tie each power plant into a new substation and the Southern California Edison transmission lines passing through the project boundary. The first two phases of the project, Ivanpah 1 and 2, would provide 100 MW of electricity and would occupy 914 acres and 921 acres respectively; the 200 MW phase, Ivanpah 3, would occupy 1,836 acres. Shared facilities would occupy an additional 25 acres and linear facilities, including the re-routing of Coliseum Road, and natural gas, water, and transmission lines would require an additional 56 acres. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS analyzes a No Project/No Action Alternative and 22 additional alternatives which include alternative sites, technologies, and conservation/demand-side management. BLM has concluded that none of the alternative locations or technologies analyzed would meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and has eliminated them from further consideration. This draft EIS also evaluates a proposed amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan, which would identify the ISEGS project within the plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project could help meet the policy goals of producing 10 percent of the nations electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025 and of approving 10,000 MW of non-hydropower renewable energy generated from public lands by 2015. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The ISEGS project would have major impacts to the biological resources of the Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat. Approximately 4,073 acres of occupied desert tortoise habitat would be permanently lost and translocation of individuals would require endangered species "take" authorization. Other species that could be impacted include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Crissal thrasher, golden eagle, and American badger. Eight special-status plant species would be directly impacted by construction and impacts to Mojave milkweed and Rusby's desert-mallow would remain significant even after implementation of proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Substantial adverse impact to existing scenic resource values in the Ivanpah Valley and Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090386, 1,249 pages, November 5, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-46 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IVANPAH+SOLAR+ELECTRIC+GENERATING+SYSTEM+%2807-AFC-5%29+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756827044; 14087-090383_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing gold mining operations by Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. (Barrick) and the consolidation of the Bald Mountain and Mooney Basin mines in White Pine County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located on public lands 65 miles northwest of the city of Ely. The mining of gold and other precious metals has occurred in the area since 1869 and large-scale gold mining commenced at Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in 1983 with a pilot scale heap-leach project which was upgraded to commercial scale in 1985. The expansion of pits, rocks disposal areas, roads, and ore-processing facilities at BMM was approved in 1995. The original plan of operations for the Mooney Basin Mine was also approved in 1995 and included a heap leach pad and process facilities, rock disposal areas, pits, haul roads, and exploration disturbance. The proposed action would result in combining the BMM and Mooney Basin plan of operation boundaries to become the BMM North Operations Area project. Existing facilities, including pits, rock disposal areas, heal leach pads, processing facilities, and interpit areas are proposed for expansion. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the enlarged area would encompass 16,465 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would utilize a different design of the proposed Mooney Basin and BMM heap leach expansions to reduce the disturbance footprint. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers, and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. After reclamation, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining area would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. 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. 21-53), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090383, 523 pages and maps, November 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI08/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826904; 14087-090383_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing gold mining operations by Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. (Barrick) and the consolidation of the Bald Mountain and Mooney Basin mines in White Pine County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located on public lands 65 miles northwest of the city of Ely. The mining of gold and other precious metals has occurred in the area since 1869 and large-scale gold mining commenced at Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in 1983 with a pilot scale heap-leach project which was upgraded to commercial scale in 1985. The expansion of pits, rocks disposal areas, roads, and ore-processing facilities at BMM was approved in 1995. The original plan of operations for the Mooney Basin Mine was also approved in 1995 and included a heap leach pad and process facilities, rock disposal areas, pits, haul roads, and exploration disturbance. The proposed action would result in combining the BMM and Mooney Basin plan of operation boundaries to become the BMM North Operations Area project. Existing facilities, including pits, rock disposal areas, heal leach pads, processing facilities, and interpit areas are proposed for expansion. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the enlarged area would encompass 16,465 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would utilize a different design of the proposed Mooney Basin and BMM heap leach expansions to reduce the disturbance footprint. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers, and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. After reclamation, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining area would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. 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. 21-53), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090383, 523 pages and maps, November 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI08/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826899; 14087-090383_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing gold mining operations by Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. (Barrick) and the consolidation of the Bald Mountain and Mooney Basin mines in White Pine County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located on public lands 65 miles northwest of the city of Ely. The mining of gold and other precious metals has occurred in the area since 1869 and large-scale gold mining commenced at Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in 1983 with a pilot scale heap-leach project which was upgraded to commercial scale in 1985. The expansion of pits, rocks disposal areas, roads, and ore-processing facilities at BMM was approved in 1995. The original plan of operations for the Mooney Basin Mine was also approved in 1995 and included a heap leach pad and process facilities, rock disposal areas, pits, haul roads, and exploration disturbance. The proposed action would result in combining the BMM and Mooney Basin plan of operation boundaries to become the BMM North Operations Area project. Existing facilities, including pits, rock disposal areas, heal leach pads, processing facilities, and interpit areas are proposed for expansion. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the enlarged area would encompass 16,465 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would utilize a different design of the proposed Mooney Basin and BMM heap leach expansions to reduce the disturbance footprint. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers, and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. After reclamation, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining area would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. 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. 21-53), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090383, 523 pages and maps, November 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI08/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826837; 14087-090383_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing gold mining operations by Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. (Barrick) and the consolidation of the Bald Mountain and Mooney Basin mines in White Pine County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located on public lands 65 miles northwest of the city of Ely. The mining of gold and other precious metals has occurred in the area since 1869 and large-scale gold mining commenced at Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in 1983 with a pilot scale heap-leach project which was upgraded to commercial scale in 1985. The expansion of pits, rocks disposal areas, roads, and ore-processing facilities at BMM was approved in 1995. The original plan of operations for the Mooney Basin Mine was also approved in 1995 and included a heap leach pad and process facilities, rock disposal areas, pits, haul roads, and exploration disturbance. The proposed action would result in combining the BMM and Mooney Basin plan of operation boundaries to become the BMM North Operations Area project. Existing facilities, including pits, rock disposal areas, heal leach pads, processing facilities, and interpit areas are proposed for expansion. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the enlarged area would encompass 16,465 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would utilize a different design of the proposed Mooney Basin and BMM heap leach expansions to reduce the disturbance footprint. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers, and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. After reclamation, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining area would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. 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. 21-53), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090383, 523 pages and maps, November 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI08/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALD MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36345288; 14087 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing gold mining operations by Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. (Barrick) and the consolidation of the Bald Mountain and Mooney Basin mines in White Pine County, Nevada are proposed. The project area is located on public lands 65 miles northwest of the city of Ely. The mining of gold and other precious metals has occurred in the area since 1869 and large-scale gold mining commenced at Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in 1983 with a pilot scale heap-leach project which was upgraded to commercial scale in 1985. The expansion of pits, rocks disposal areas, roads, and ore-processing facilities at BMM was approved in 1995. The original plan of operations for the Mooney Basin Mine was also approved in 1995 and included a heap leach pad and process facilities, rock disposal areas, pits, haul roads, and exploration disturbance. The proposed action would result in combining the BMM and Mooney Basin plan of operation boundaries to become the BMM North Operations Area project. Existing facilities, including pits, rock disposal areas, heal leach pads, processing facilities, and interpit areas are proposed for expansion. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the enlarged area would encompass 16,465 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would utilize a different design of the proposed Mooney Basin and BMM heap leach expansions to reduce the disturbance footprint. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers, and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. After reclamation, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining area would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. 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. 21-53), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090383, 523 pages and maps, November 4, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI08/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=BALD+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=112&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+International+Journal+of+Bank+Marketing&rft.issn=02652323&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SUPPLY CONTRACTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 101-514 (SECTION 206), PROPOSED WATER SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH THE EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SUPPLY CONTRACTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 101-514 (SECTION 206), PROPOSED WATER SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH THE EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126405; 14086-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a new 40-year Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply contract under Public Law 101-514 pertaining specifically to the El Dorado County Water Agency (EDCWA) and the need for new water supply entitlements for El Dorado County, California is proposed. Under this new contract, up to 15,000 acre-feet per annum (AFA) of CVP municipal and industrial water would be made available to EDCWA for diversion from Folsom Reservoir, or from an exchange on the American River upstream from Folsom Reservoir. The contract would provide water that would serve existing and future municipal and industrial water needs in El Dorado County, establish and preserve entitlements to divert the water in accordance with state and Bureau of Reclamation requirements, and provide new water supplies that would justify future construction, operation, and maintenance of new facilities to convey and treat the diverted water. EDCWA would make the new CVP water available to the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) and the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD) for use within their respective areas. All yearly requested quantities of this new CVP water would be made by EDCWA on behalf of its member agencies and deliveries to EID and GDPUD could vary from year to year based on anticipated need. Diversions by EID would occur at their existing water supply intake on the south arm of Folsom Reservoir and water would be pumped to its existing El Dorado Hills water treatment plant. GDPUD holds no direct point of access and would be compelled to negotiate a separate exchange agreement with an upstream purveyor. At this time, the Placer County Water Supply Agency and GDPUD have a draft cost-sharing agreement for construction of the American River pump station and GDPUD would take water from this station in exchange for relinquishing its portion of its CVP allocation. Numerous alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS and screening criteria were applied to a wide range of new diversion and non-diversion water supplies. Nine alternatives are analyzed in detail. Under Alternative 1A (No Action), the proposed contract would not be executed and it would be expected that EID and GDPUD would seek alternative supplies. Alternative 1B (No Project) would assume no attempts to secure alternative supplies in addition to no new contract. Under Alternatives 2A through 2C, varying quantities would be allocated to EID and GDPUD. Under Alternative 3, the Water Transfer Alternative, both EID and GDPUD would seek an alternative supply to the CVP water contracts. Under Alternatives 4A through 4C, the Reduced Diversion Alternatives, the total amount that could be diverted under the proposed contract would be reduced from up to 15,000 AFA to variations reduced by increments of 2,500 AFA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed contract would help meet the long-term municipal, industrial, and agricultural water needs of El Dorado County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed diversion would reduce: reservoir end-of-month storages, reservoir water surface elevations, littoral habitat in reservoirs, flow releases from dams, and instream flows. Federally listed species that would be impacted include: Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, and green sturgeon. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 101-514 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090382, Volume I:--662 pages and maps, Volume II: Appendices--CD-ROM, November 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-48 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Public Law 101-514, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+WATER+SUPPLY+CONTRACTS+UNDER+PUBLIC+LAW+101-514+%28SECTION+206%29%2C+PROPOSED+WATER+SERVICE+CONTRACTS+WITH+THE+EL+DORADO+COUNTY+WATER+AGENCY%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+WATER+SUPPLY+CONTRACTS+UNDER+PUBLIC+LAW+101-514+%28SECTION+206%29%2C+PROPOSED+WATER+SERVICE+CONTRACTS+WITH+THE+EL+DORADO+COUNTY+WATER+AGENCY%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826655; 14085-090381_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A range of alternatives for the management of Bureau of Reclamation-administered lands within the New Melones Lake Area in Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, California are proposed. New Melones Lake, located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, is the fifth largest reservoir in California and the most recent major project incorporated into the Central Valley project. The New Melones dam was completed in 1979 and holds water from the Stanislaus River and other tributaries within a 980-square mile watershed. The plan area encompasses 30,000 acres,, including New Melones Lake (12,500 acres) and surrounding lands. The project provides flood control for the lower Stanislaus River and San Joaquin River Delta, irrigation and municipal water supplies, peak use hydroelectric production, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Current and past management decisions are based on a master plan approved in 1976. Key issues identified during scoping include access, biological resources, facilities, and recreation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are developed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize access and recreation including opportunities for developed and motorized recreation. key components would include: evaluating the addition of recreation facilities; allowing increased houseboat, water vessel, and equestrian use; and relocating the equestrian staging area. Prescriptive grazing would be allowed to assist in invasive weed removal and fire protection. Alternative C would emphasize tighter controls on motorized recreation and key components would include potentially decreasing the level of houseboat use. New trails would not be developed and access to caves and rock climbing routes would be restricted to protect special species habitats. Use of chemical, biological, and mechanical controls to help eradicate invasive species would be allowed. Alternative D would balance management of recreational uses and resources with management of natural and cultural resources by allowing increased watercraft use with new lake zones and term limits for houseboats, minimizing development of recreation areas in rural natural areas, and relocating the equestrian staging area. A moderate amount of updating and modernizing of roads, access areas, and facilities would occur and a long-term strategy for managing hunting would be developed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would detail the framework for the conservation, protection, enhancement, development, and use of the resources in the New Melones Lake Area and would address changes in types and levels of use over the last several decades. Alternative B would provide the most recreation opportunities, such as new marina facilities, floating swim docks, radio-controlled flying facilities, retail stores for camping supplies, lodging facilities, scenic cruises, restaurants or cafes, a new recreational vehicle park, equestrian trails, a mountain biking course, camping facilities, skeet or target shooting, and seaplane training. Invasive species prevention and treatment would be most effective under Alternative C which would implement use of target-specific herbicides during appropriate times. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreation facilities would result in temporary emissions and increased visitor levels would be an ongoing source of additional emissions. Recreation use would affect noise levels but the regulations proposed under Alternative C would minimize impacts. Under the action alternatives, new facilities would result in a loss of natural landscape and open space. Recreation could disrupt the normal behavior pattern of wildlife and could degrade habitat by altering vegetation or soil. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992. JF - EPA number: 090381, 711 pages, November 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-53 KW - Dams KW - Emissions KW - Fire Prevention KW - Flood Control KW - Herbicides KW - Hunting Management KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - California KW - New Melones Lake KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826296; 14085-090381_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A range of alternatives for the management of Bureau of Reclamation-administered lands within the New Melones Lake Area in Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, California are proposed. New Melones Lake, located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, is the fifth largest reservoir in California and the most recent major project incorporated into the Central Valley project. The New Melones dam was completed in 1979 and holds water from the Stanislaus River and other tributaries within a 980-square mile watershed. The plan area encompasses 30,000 acres,, including New Melones Lake (12,500 acres) and surrounding lands. The project provides flood control for the lower Stanislaus River and San Joaquin River Delta, irrigation and municipal water supplies, peak use hydroelectric production, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Current and past management decisions are based on a master plan approved in 1976. Key issues identified during scoping include access, biological resources, facilities, and recreation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are developed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize access and recreation including opportunities for developed and motorized recreation. key components would include: evaluating the addition of recreation facilities; allowing increased houseboat, water vessel, and equestrian use; and relocating the equestrian staging area. Prescriptive grazing would be allowed to assist in invasive weed removal and fire protection. Alternative C would emphasize tighter controls on motorized recreation and key components would include potentially decreasing the level of houseboat use. New trails would not be developed and access to caves and rock climbing routes would be restricted to protect special species habitats. Use of chemical, biological, and mechanical controls to help eradicate invasive species would be allowed. Alternative D would balance management of recreational uses and resources with management of natural and cultural resources by allowing increased watercraft use with new lake zones and term limits for houseboats, minimizing development of recreation areas in rural natural areas, and relocating the equestrian staging area. A moderate amount of updating and modernizing of roads, access areas, and facilities would occur and a long-term strategy for managing hunting would be developed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would detail the framework for the conservation, protection, enhancement, development, and use of the resources in the New Melones Lake Area and would address changes in types and levels of use over the last several decades. Alternative B would provide the most recreation opportunities, such as new marina facilities, floating swim docks, radio-controlled flying facilities, retail stores for camping supplies, lodging facilities, scenic cruises, restaurants or cafes, a new recreational vehicle park, equestrian trails, a mountain biking course, camping facilities, skeet or target shooting, and seaplane training. Invasive species prevention and treatment would be most effective under Alternative C which would implement use of target-specific herbicides during appropriate times. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreation facilities would result in temporary emissions and increased visitor levels would be an ongoing source of additional emissions. Recreation use would affect noise levels but the regulations proposed under Alternative C would minimize impacts. Under the action alternatives, new facilities would result in a loss of natural landscape and open space. Recreation could disrupt the normal behavior pattern of wildlife and could degrade habitat by altering vegetation or soil. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992. JF - EPA number: 090381, 711 pages, November 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-53 KW - Dams KW - Emissions KW - Fire Prevention KW - Flood Control KW - Herbicides KW - Hunting Management KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - California KW - New Melones Lake KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826237; 14085-090381_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A range of alternatives for the management of Bureau of Reclamation-administered lands within the New Melones Lake Area in Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, California are proposed. New Melones Lake, located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, is the fifth largest reservoir in California and the most recent major project incorporated into the Central Valley project. The New Melones dam was completed in 1979 and holds water from the Stanislaus River and other tributaries within a 980-square mile watershed. The plan area encompasses 30,000 acres,, including New Melones Lake (12,500 acres) and surrounding lands. The project provides flood control for the lower Stanislaus River and San Joaquin River Delta, irrigation and municipal water supplies, peak use hydroelectric production, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Current and past management decisions are based on a master plan approved in 1976. Key issues identified during scoping include access, biological resources, facilities, and recreation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are developed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize access and recreation including opportunities for developed and motorized recreation. key components would include: evaluating the addition of recreation facilities; allowing increased houseboat, water vessel, and equestrian use; and relocating the equestrian staging area. Prescriptive grazing would be allowed to assist in invasive weed removal and fire protection. Alternative C would emphasize tighter controls on motorized recreation and key components would include potentially decreasing the level of houseboat use. New trails would not be developed and access to caves and rock climbing routes would be restricted to protect special species habitats. Use of chemical, biological, and mechanical controls to help eradicate invasive species would be allowed. Alternative D would balance management of recreational uses and resources with management of natural and cultural resources by allowing increased watercraft use with new lake zones and term limits for houseboats, minimizing development of recreation areas in rural natural areas, and relocating the equestrian staging area. A moderate amount of updating and modernizing of roads, access areas, and facilities would occur and a long-term strategy for managing hunting would be developed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would detail the framework for the conservation, protection, enhancement, development, and use of the resources in the New Melones Lake Area and would address changes in types and levels of use over the last several decades. Alternative B would provide the most recreation opportunities, such as new marina facilities, floating swim docks, radio-controlled flying facilities, retail stores for camping supplies, lodging facilities, scenic cruises, restaurants or cafes, a new recreational vehicle park, equestrian trails, a mountain biking course, camping facilities, skeet or target shooting, and seaplane training. Invasive species prevention and treatment would be most effective under Alternative C which would implement use of target-specific herbicides during appropriate times. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreation facilities would result in temporary emissions and increased visitor levels would be an ongoing source of additional emissions. Recreation use would affect noise levels but the regulations proposed under Alternative C would minimize impacts. Under the action alternatives, new facilities would result in a loss of natural landscape and open space. Recreation could disrupt the normal behavior pattern of wildlife and could degrade habitat by altering vegetation or soil. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992. JF - EPA number: 090381, 711 pages, November 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-53 KW - Dams KW - Emissions KW - Fire Prevention KW - Flood Control KW - Herbicides KW - Hunting Management KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - California KW - New Melones Lake KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT WATER SUPPLY CONTRACTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 101-514 (SECTION 206), PROPOSED WATER SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH THE EL DORADO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36346893; 14086 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a new 40-year Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply contract under Public Law 101-514 pertaining specifically to the El Dorado County Water Agency (EDCWA) and the need for new water supply entitlements for El Dorado County, California is proposed. Under this new contract, up to 15,000 acre-feet per annum (AFA) of CVP municipal and industrial water would be made available to EDCWA for diversion from Folsom Reservoir, or from an exchange on the American River upstream from Folsom Reservoir. The contract would provide water that would serve existing and future municipal and industrial water needs in El Dorado County, establish and preserve entitlements to divert the water in accordance with state and Bureau of Reclamation requirements, and provide new water supplies that would justify future construction, operation, and maintenance of new facilities to convey and treat the diverted water. EDCWA would make the new CVP water available to the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) and the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD) for use within their respective areas. All yearly requested quantities of this new CVP water would be made by EDCWA on behalf of its member agencies and deliveries to EID and GDPUD could vary from year to year based on anticipated need. Diversions by EID would occur at their existing water supply intake on the south arm of Folsom Reservoir and water would be pumped to its existing El Dorado Hills water treatment plant. GDPUD holds no direct point of access and would be compelled to negotiate a separate exchange agreement with an upstream purveyor. At this time, the Placer County Water Supply Agency and GDPUD have a draft cost-sharing agreement for construction of the American River pump station and GDPUD would take water from this station in exchange for relinquishing its portion of its CVP allocation. Numerous alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS and screening criteria were applied to a wide range of new diversion and non-diversion water supplies. Nine alternatives are analyzed in detail. Under Alternative 1A (No Action), the proposed contract would not be executed and it would be expected that EID and GDPUD would seek alternative supplies. Alternative 1B (No Project) would assume no attempts to secure alternative supplies in addition to no new contract. Under Alternatives 2A through 2C, varying quantities would be allocated to EID and GDPUD. Under Alternative 3, the Water Transfer Alternative, both EID and GDPUD would seek an alternative supply to the CVP water contracts. Under Alternatives 4A through 4C, the Reduced Diversion Alternatives, the total amount that could be diverted under the proposed contract would be reduced from up to 15,000 AFA to variations reduced by increments of 2,500 AFA. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed contract would help meet the long-term municipal, industrial, and agricultural water needs of El Dorado County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed diversion would reduce: reservoir end-of-month storages, reservoir water surface elevations, littoral habitat in reservoirs, flow releases from dams, and instream flows. Federally listed species that would be impacted include: Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, and green sturgeon. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 101-514 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090382, Volume I:--662 pages and maps, Volume II: Appendices--CD-ROM, November 3, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-48 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Public Law 101-514, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+WATER+SUPPLY+CONTRACTS+UNDER+PUBLIC+LAW+101-514+%28SECTION+206%29%2C+PROPOSED+WATER+SERVICE+CONTRACTS+WITH+THE+EL+DORADO+COUNTY+WATER+AGENCY%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT+WATER+SUPPLY+CONTRACTS+UNDER+PUBLIC+LAW+101-514+%28SECTION+206%29%2C+PROPOSED+WATER+SERVICE+CONTRACTS+WITH+THE+EL+DORADO+COUNTY+WATER+AGENCY%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW MELONES LAKE AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUOLUMNE AND CALAVERAS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16390664; 14085 AB - PURPOSE: A range of alternatives for the management of Bureau of Reclamation-administered lands within the New Melones Lake Area in Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, California are proposed. New Melones Lake, located in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, is the fifth largest reservoir in California and the most recent major project incorporated into the Central Valley project. The New Melones dam was completed in 1979 and holds water from the Stanislaus River and other tributaries within a 980-square mile watershed. The plan area encompasses 30,000 acres,, including New Melones Lake (12,500 acres) and surrounding lands. The project provides flood control for the lower Stanislaus River and San Joaquin River Delta, irrigation and municipal water supplies, peak use hydroelectric production, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Current and past management decisions are based on a master plan approved in 1976. Key issues identified during scoping include access, biological resources, facilities, and recreation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are developed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize access and recreation including opportunities for developed and motorized recreation. key components would include: evaluating the addition of recreation facilities; allowing increased houseboat, water vessel, and equestrian use; and relocating the equestrian staging area. Prescriptive grazing would be allowed to assist in invasive weed removal and fire protection. Alternative C would emphasize tighter controls on motorized recreation and key components would include potentially decreasing the level of houseboat use. New trails would not be developed and access to caves and rock climbing routes would be restricted to protect special species habitats. Use of chemical, biological, and mechanical controls to help eradicate invasive species would be allowed. Alternative D would balance management of recreational uses and resources with management of natural and cultural resources by allowing increased watercraft use with new lake zones and term limits for houseboats, minimizing development of recreation areas in rural natural areas, and relocating the equestrian staging area. A moderate amount of updating and modernizing of roads, access areas, and facilities would occur and a long-term strategy for managing hunting would be developed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The resource management plan would detail the framework for the conservation, protection, enhancement, development, and use of the resources in the New Melones Lake Area and would address changes in types and levels of use over the last several decades. Alternative B would provide the most recreation opportunities, such as new marina facilities, floating swim docks, radio-controlled flying facilities, retail stores for camping supplies, lodging facilities, scenic cruises, restaurants or cafes, a new recreational vehicle park, equestrian trails, a mountain biking course, camping facilities, skeet or target shooting, and seaplane training. Invasive species prevention and treatment would be most effective under Alternative C which would implement use of target-specific herbicides during appropriate times. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of new recreation facilities would result in temporary emissions and increased visitor levels would be an ongoing source of additional emissions. Recreation use would affect noise levels but the regulations proposed under Alternative C would minimize impacts. Under the action alternatives, new facilities would result in a loss of natural landscape and open space. Recreation could disrupt the normal behavior pattern of wildlife and could degrade habitat by altering vegetation or soil. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992. JF - EPA number: 090381, 711 pages, November 3, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-53 KW - Dams KW - Emissions KW - Fire Prevention KW - Flood Control KW - Herbicides KW - Hunting Management KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - California KW - New Melones Lake KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEW+MELONES+LAKE+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUOLUMNE+AND+CALAVERAS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Folsom, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. AN - 756826987; 14084-090380_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (NRA), located in the Atlanta area of Georgia is proposed. The revised plan would update the existing plan adopted in 1989. The 10,000-acre NRA extends 48-miles through the rapidly developing area between Atlanta and Lake Lanier. The area is visited by more than 2.6 million persons annually and this high level of use, and the associated demands on facilities and resources, are expected to increase in the future. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue current management practices, were considered in the draft EIS of May 2004. Action alternatives defined management prescriptions for five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, that would be allowed. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2008 further addressed three key management issues: 1) determination of appropriate levels of service for visitor interpretation and education within the park; 2) determination of suitable locations for administration and visitor facilities; and 3) determination of how to manage the park to allow for quality visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resources. In response to these key issues, this final EIS considers six alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would provide more opportunities throughout the park for hardened types of access and facilities, such as boat ramps, paved trails, parking areas, and restrooms where zoning allowed. Estimated initial costs of the alternatives under consideration range from $3.8 million for low-end estimate for the No Action Alternative to $28.8 for the high-end estimate for the most expensive action alternative. Estimated initial costs of the preferred alternative ranges from $20.6 million to $26.7 million. Annual operating cost estimates across alternatives range from $3.5 million to $4.8 million. Annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $4.6 million to $4.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The amended plan would define strategies that would allow for diverse visitor uses of the NRA, protect park resources, and provide for the enjoyment of visitors. Access to the park would increase significantly. The preferred alternative would allow the NPS to concentrate limited resources in the hubs, while maintaining a wide variety of visitor uses. Educational opportunities within the NRA would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though developed areas under the preferred alternative would cover more acreage than at present, only portions of the vegetation and associated wildlife habitat on this acreage would be disturbed. Approximately 34 percent of the park would remain relatively difficult to access by visitors. The high degree of solitude currently characterizing the park would be reduced significantly, though the traditional character of the park would be largely maintained. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-154. JF - EPA number: 090380, 448 pages, November 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-21 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Chattahooche River National Recreation Area KW - Georgia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 106-154, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. AN - 756826842; 14084-090380_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (NRA), located in the Atlanta area of Georgia is proposed. The revised plan would update the existing plan adopted in 1989. The 10,000-acre NRA extends 48-miles through the rapidly developing area between Atlanta and Lake Lanier. The area is visited by more than 2.6 million persons annually and this high level of use, and the associated demands on facilities and resources, are expected to increase in the future. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue current management practices, were considered in the draft EIS of May 2004. Action alternatives defined management prescriptions for five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, that would be allowed. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2008 further addressed three key management issues: 1) determination of appropriate levels of service for visitor interpretation and education within the park; 2) determination of suitable locations for administration and visitor facilities; and 3) determination of how to manage the park to allow for quality visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resources. In response to these key issues, this final EIS considers six alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would provide more opportunities throughout the park for hardened types of access and facilities, such as boat ramps, paved trails, parking areas, and restrooms where zoning allowed. Estimated initial costs of the alternatives under consideration range from $3.8 million for low-end estimate for the No Action Alternative to $28.8 for the high-end estimate for the most expensive action alternative. Estimated initial costs of the preferred alternative ranges from $20.6 million to $26.7 million. Annual operating cost estimates across alternatives range from $3.5 million to $4.8 million. Annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $4.6 million to $4.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The amended plan would define strategies that would allow for diverse visitor uses of the NRA, protect park resources, and provide for the enjoyment of visitors. Access to the park would increase significantly. The preferred alternative would allow the NPS to concentrate limited resources in the hubs, while maintaining a wide variety of visitor uses. Educational opportunities within the NRA would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though developed areas under the preferred alternative would cover more acreage than at present, only portions of the vegetation and associated wildlife habitat on this acreage would be disturbed. Approximately 34 percent of the park would remain relatively difficult to access by visitors. The high degree of solitude currently characterizing the park would be reduced significantly, though the traditional character of the park would be largely maintained. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-154. JF - EPA number: 090380, 448 pages, November 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-21 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Chattahooche River National Recreation Area KW - Georgia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 106-154, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. AN - 16392783; 14084 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the general management plan for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (NRA), located in the Atlanta area of Georgia is proposed. The revised plan would update the existing plan adopted in 1989. The 10,000-acre NRA extends 48-miles through the rapidly developing area between Atlanta and Lake Lanier. The area is visited by more than 2.6 million persons annually and this high level of use, and the associated demands on facilities and resources, are expected to increase in the future. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue current management practices, were considered in the draft EIS of May 2004. Action alternatives defined management prescriptions for five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, that would be allowed. The supplemental draft EIS of December 2008 further addressed three key management issues: 1) determination of appropriate levels of service for visitor interpretation and education within the park; 2) determination of suitable locations for administration and visitor facilities; and 3) determination of how to manage the park to allow for quality visitor experiences while protecting natural and cultural resources. In response to these key issues, this final EIS considers six alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would provide more opportunities throughout the park for hardened types of access and facilities, such as boat ramps, paved trails, parking areas, and restrooms where zoning allowed. Estimated initial costs of the alternatives under consideration range from $3.8 million for low-end estimate for the No Action Alternative to $28.8 for the high-end estimate for the most expensive action alternative. Estimated initial costs of the preferred alternative ranges from $20.6 million to $26.7 million. Annual operating cost estimates across alternatives range from $3.5 million to $4.8 million. Annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $4.6 million to $4.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The amended plan would define strategies that would allow for diverse visitor uses of the NRA, protect park resources, and provide for the enjoyment of visitors. Access to the park would increase significantly. The preferred alternative would allow the NPS to concentrate limited resources in the hubs, while maintaining a wide variety of visitor uses. Educational opportunities within the NRA would be significantly enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Though developed areas under the preferred alternative would cover more acreage than at present, only portions of the vegetation and associated wildlife habitat on this acreage would be disturbed. Approximately 34 percent of the park would remain relatively difficult to access by visitors. The high degree of solitude currently characterizing the park would be reduced significantly, though the traditional character of the park would be largely maintained. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 106-154. JF - EPA number: 090380, 448 pages, November 2, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-21 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Chattahooche River National Recreation Area KW - Georgia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 106-154, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16392783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756826707; 14004-090300_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756826646; 14004-090300_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756826611; 14004-090300_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756826600; 14004-090300_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756826283; 14004-090300_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756826277; 14004-090300_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36353306; 14004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly higher fire suppression level through the life of the proposed plan as occurred from 1993 to 2005. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 3,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. Forest health and resilience would be improved while age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090300, Final EIS--685 pages, Appendices--290 pages, October 30, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-13 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COCONINO+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756826647; 14077-090373_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way 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. Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company merged in 1999 and were renamed NV Energy in 2008. 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 coal-fired power plant and associated facilities until such time as the carbon capture/sequestration is 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 proposed action would include construction of a 500-kilovolt (KV) electric transmission line and fiber optic communication facilities from the proposed Robinson Summit Substation extending 236 miles south to the Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas, a loop-in of the existing Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line at the new Robinson Summit Substation, expansion of the existing Falcon Substation in Eureka County, addition of new equipment inside the existing Harry Allen Substation, a permanent access road into the Robinson Summit Substation, and temporary access roads to all facilities along the 236-mile project route. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental 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, however, 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. 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 rights-of-way 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.). JF - EPA number: 090373, 612 pages and maps, October 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-10/01+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges 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/756826647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-29&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756826637; 14077-090373_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way 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. Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company merged in 1999 and were renamed NV Energy in 2008. 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 coal-fired power plant and associated facilities until such time as the carbon capture/sequestration is 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 proposed action would include construction of a 500-kilovolt (KV) electric transmission line and fiber optic communication facilities from the proposed Robinson Summit Substation extending 236 miles south to the Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas, a loop-in of the existing Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line at the new Robinson Summit Substation, expansion of the existing Falcon Substation in Eureka County, addition of new equipment inside the existing Harry Allen Substation, a permanent access road into the Robinson Summit Substation, and temporary access roads to all facilities along the 236-mile project route. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental 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, however, 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. 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 rights-of-way 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.). JF - EPA number: 090373, 612 pages and maps, October 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-10/01+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges 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/756826637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-29&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756826580; 14077-090373_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way 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. Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company merged in 1999 and were renamed NV Energy in 2008. 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 coal-fired power plant and associated facilities until such time as the carbon capture/sequestration is 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 proposed action would include construction of a 500-kilovolt (KV) electric transmission line and fiber optic communication facilities from the proposed Robinson Summit Substation extending 236 miles south to the Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas, a loop-in of the existing Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line at the new Robinson Summit Substation, expansion of the existing Falcon Substation in Eureka County, addition of new equipment inside the existing Harry Allen Substation, a permanent access road into the Robinson Summit Substation, and temporary access roads to all facilities along the 236-mile project route. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental 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, however, 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. 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 rights-of-way 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.). JF - EPA number: 090373, 612 pages and maps, October 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-10/01+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges 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/756826580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-29&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2009 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 5] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756826309; 14077-090373_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way 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. Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company merged in 1999 and were renamed NV Energy in 2008. 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 coal-fired power plant and associated facilities until such time as the carbon capture/sequestration is 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 proposed action would include construction of a 500-kilovolt (KV) electric transmission line and fiber optic communication facilities from the proposed Robinson Summit Substation extending 236 miles south to the Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas, a loop-in of the existing Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line at the new Robinson Summit Substation, expansion of the existing Falcon Substation in Eureka County, addition of new equipment inside the existing Harry Allen Substation, a permanent access road into the Robinson Summit Substation, and temporary access roads to all facilities along the 236-mile project route. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental 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, however, 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. 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 rights-of-way 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.). JF - EPA number: 090373, 612 pages and maps, October 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-10/01+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges 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/756826309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-29&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756826227; 14077-090373_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way 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. Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company merged in 1999 and were renamed NV Energy in 2008. 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 coal-fired power plant and associated facilities until such time as the carbon capture/sequestration is 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 proposed action would include construction of a 500-kilovolt (KV) electric transmission line and fiber optic communication facilities from the proposed Robinson Summit Substation extending 236 miles south to the Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas, a loop-in of the existing Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line at the new Robinson Summit Substation, expansion of the existing Falcon Substation in Eureka County, addition of new equipment inside the existing Harry Allen Substation, a permanent access road into the Robinson Summit Substation, and temporary access roads to all facilities along the 236-mile project route. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental 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, however, 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. 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 rights-of-way 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.). JF - EPA number: 090373, 612 pages and maps, October 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-10/01+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges 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/756826227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-29&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2009 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. AN - 36344278; 14077 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way 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. Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company merged in 1999 and were renamed NV Energy in 2008. 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 coal-fired power plant and associated facilities until such time as the carbon capture/sequestration is 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 proposed action would include construction of a 500-kilovolt (KV) electric transmission line and fiber optic communication facilities from the proposed Robinson Summit Substation extending 236 miles south to the Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas, a loop-in of the existing Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line at the new Robinson Summit Substation, expansion of the existing Falcon Substation in Eureka County, addition of new equipment inside the existing Harry Allen Substation, a permanent access road into the Robinson Summit Substation, and temporary access roads to all facilities along the 236-mile project route. In addition to the proposed action, this draft supplemental 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, however, 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. 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 rights-of-way 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.). JF - EPA number: 090373, 612 pages and maps, October 29, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-10/01+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges 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/36344278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-29&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 - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY. AN - 756826659; 14075-090371_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, Middlesboro, Kentucky is proposed. The park is located on the tri-state boundaries of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee and encompasses 24,531 acres including 14,091 acres of recommended wilderness and portions of the Fern lake watershed. The park lies in four counties in the three states, ranges from one to four miles in width, and stretches for 20 miles astride the Cumberland and Brush Mountains. The entire Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The parks last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1979, and since that time, patterns and types of visitor use have changed and the parks primary cultural landscape element has also changed as a result of construction projects involving the twin-bore Cumberland Gap Tunnel system, highway relocations, and the rehabilitation of the Cumberland Gap and Wilderness Road. In addition, acquisition of the Fern Lake watershed requires a defined management approach for resource use and protection. The park faces new resource and other management challenges as a result of these and other changes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to: education, communication, and outreach activities; partnering to maximize services; access to important resources within the park; protection of resources; and socioeconomics within the tri-state area. Four management zones were developed for the park: a cultural resource zone, a natural zone, a recommended wilderness zone, and a developed zone. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, some additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy a wide variety of cultural and natural resources in an outdoor setting would be provided. This would be achieved by locating new facilities primarily within the newly established developed zones at Fern Lake, areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement, the visitor center, and the wilderness campground. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would provide additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy the parks cultural and natural resources, while increasing and formalizing partnering efforts, and increasing opportunities for educational and interpretive activities. Eleven new facilities would be constructed in developed zones near Fern Lake, the Gap area, and areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement. The recommended wilderness zone would be the same under Alternatives B and C. The 4,500-acre Fern Lake watershed and Fern Lake and surrounding area would be fully acquired and would be open for visitor use under any of the alternatives. New facilities that could be constructed at Fern Lake include a composting comfort station and the acquisition, stabilization, and maintenance of a boat house and two residences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would update the management framework for the park, address changing issues and conditions, incorporate new resource information, and provide management direction for resource use and protection within newly acquired park lands. Under all alternatives, wilderness area would be maintained providing outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive wilderness experiences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the action alternatives would have minor and adverse impacts for soundscape, scenic resources, and visual quality. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090371, 415 pages and maps, October 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 09-52 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Cumberland Gap National Historical Park KW - Fern Lake KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middlesboro, Kentucky; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY. AN - 36345192; 14075 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, Middlesboro, Kentucky is proposed. The park is located on the tri-state boundaries of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee and encompasses 24,531 acres including 14,091 acres of recommended wilderness and portions of the Fern lake watershed. The park lies in four counties in the three states, ranges from one to four miles in width, and stretches for 20 miles astride the Cumberland and Brush Mountains. The entire Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The parks last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1979, and since that time, patterns and types of visitor use have changed and the parks primary cultural landscape element has also changed as a result of construction projects involving the twin-bore Cumberland Gap Tunnel system, highway relocations, and the rehabilitation of the Cumberland Gap and Wilderness Road. In addition, acquisition of the Fern Lake watershed requires a defined management approach for resource use and protection. The park faces new resource and other management challenges as a result of these and other changes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to: education, communication, and outreach activities; partnering to maximize services; access to important resources within the park; protection of resources; and socioeconomics within the tri-state area. Four management zones were developed for the park: a cultural resource zone, a natural zone, a recommended wilderness zone, and a developed zone. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, some additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy a wide variety of cultural and natural resources in an outdoor setting would be provided. This would be achieved by locating new facilities primarily within the newly established developed zones at Fern Lake, areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement, the visitor center, and the wilderness campground. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, would provide additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy the parks cultural and natural resources, while increasing and formalizing partnering efforts, and increasing opportunities for educational and interpretive activities. Eleven new facilities would be constructed in developed zones near Fern Lake, the Gap area, and areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement. The recommended wilderness zone would be the same under Alternatives B and C. The 4,500-acre Fern Lake watershed and Fern Lake and surrounding area would be fully acquired and would be open for visitor use under any of the alternatives. New facilities that could be constructed at Fern Lake include a composting comfort station and the acquisition, stabilization, and maintenance of a boat house and two residences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would update the management framework for the park, address changing issues and conditions, incorporate new resource information, and provide management direction for resource use and protection within newly acquired park lands. Under all alternatives, wilderness area would be maintained providing outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive wilderness experiences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the action alternatives would have minor and adverse impacts for soundscape, scenic resources, and visual quality. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090371, 415 pages and maps, October 26, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 09-52 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Cumberland Gap National Historical Park KW - Fern Lake KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middlesboro, Kentucky; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826806; 14071-090367_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826437; 14071-090367_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826427; 14071-090367_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826418; 14071-090367_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826412; 14071-090367_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826403; 14071-090367_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT BLISS ARMY GROWTH AND FORCE STRUCTURE REALIGNMENT, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS AND DONA ANA AND OTERO COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36346587; 14071 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of actions necessary to support the Armys decisions on growth and realignment at Fort Bliss, El Paso County, Texas and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico are proposed. The Army is proposing the action to implement the Grow The Army (GTA) stationing decisions for Fort Bliss as identified in the 2007 GTA Programmatic EIS. This recent GTA stationing decision, in combination with previous decisions, and other national defense policy documents, defines the known missions for Fort Bliss and establishes the near-term training requirements for terrain availability and training infrastructure improvements. Alternatives comprising the proposed action were grouped into three categories. Category 1 contains four stationing and training alternatives for three types of brigade combat teams along with required combat support and service units. Category 2 contains five alternatives related to land use changes in the Fort Bliss Training Complex that would be needed to support the training units. Category 3 contains four alternatives involving training infrastructure improvements that would incorporate increased levels of digital technology. Training infrastructure improvement Alternative 4 would include construction of a rail line connecting the Fort Bliss Cantonment to the Fort Bliss Training Complex. All three categories include a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is the same as the preferred alternative in the 2007 GTA PEIS, which is being implemented at Fort Bliss. The Army has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. POSITIVE IMPACTS: These actions would allow for reasonably foreseeable future stationing actions that take advantage of the training opportunities at Fort Bliss, including varied terrain; a full suite of training ranges; collocation with heavy, light, Stryker and aviation combat units; and collocation with various support units. The land use modifications and training infrastructure improvements on Fort Bliss would better support GTA and future stationing decisions, as well as continued mobilization and pre-deployment training of units at Fort Bliss. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The greatest impacts to soils would arise from off-road vehicle maneuvers, which could compact soils, crush vegetation, and accelerate soil erosion. Potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity could occur from erosion and sedimentation related to construction activities and maneuver training, as well as contamination resulting from handling of wastewater at the range facilities. Proposed expansion of restricted air space would be an impediment to civil aircraft transiting the region. Noise from the operation of aircraft and the firing of large caliber weapons would increase the size of predicted noise exposure contours and complaints from residents could increase. The increased size and frequency of convoys traveling to the training areas under the action alternatives could result in road degradation and increased maintenance costs. JF - EPA number: 090367, 628 pages, October 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Demolition KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Munitions KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Fort Bliss New Mexico and Texas KW - New Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=FORT+BLISS+ARMY+GROWTH+AND+FORCE+STRUCTURE+REALIGNMENT%2C+EL+PASO+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+AND+DONA+ANA+AND+OTERO+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bliss, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WIND CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 756826565; 14068-090364_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population management plan for the Wind Cave National Park of Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. The 28,295-acre park lies in the southwest corner of the state in the southeastern Black Hills region. In addition to extraordinary cave resources, the park contains a variety of surface natural and cultural resources. The park's mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for elk, bison, pronghorn, deer, coyotes, and black-tailed prairie dogs. The population of elk inhabiting the park is largely uncontrolled by natural predation, hunting, or other forces that may have historically kept the number of animals low. As a result of the lack of natural population controls, the elk herd has grown so rapidly that it threatens park resources and depredates crops on neighboring farmlands. In the past, the park's primary elk management tool was the relocation of elk to other areas outside the park. However, with the concurrent discovery of a chronic wasting disease (CWD) among elk wintering in the park and a 2002 memo from the National Park Service Director (NPS 2002b) prohibiting the movement of live animals when a population is known to be infected with CWD, relocation is no longer an option. Therefore, this EIS planning process has been undertaken to examine alternatives to maintain the elk herd at a size such that vegetation, other ungulates, and wildlife, park neighbors, and other park resources would not experience damage due to excessive numbers of elk. Six alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), three action alternatives for initial herd reduction, and two alternatives addressing maintenance of herd size following the initial herd reduction. The two initial herd reduction alternatives would be use as maintenance management plans as well. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make use of gates to keep elk that move out of the park outside the park through hunting season. This would allow hunters to cull the herd without violating park hunting restrictions. Alternative C would provide for the rounding up and shipment of live elk to a processing facility or euthanize elk on-site in the park. Alternative D would use authorized sharpshooters inside the park. Alternative E and F would maintain the size of the herd through either sterilization of a select number of female elk or through the use of chemical contraceptives. The selected alternative plan would guide policy for the adaptive management of elk inhabiting the park, as well as providing a strategy for the integration of monitoring and research, over the next 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the elk herd to a safe, manageable size, removing pressure on forage for other wildlife habitat, potential for epidemic CWD within the herd, and excessive damage to wild plants and to crops on private farmland lying outside the park boundaries. Moreover, the expansion of the out-of-park herd would increase recreational hunting opportunities southwest South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Even at lower levels of elk herd size. Browsing of aspen, oak, and cottonwoods could still prevent their regeneration and could result in a decrease and perhaps loss of this species from certain areas within the park. Soil erosion would be exacerbated in areas where elk congregate. Removal of elk from the park would reduce opportunities for recreational elk viewing. Reduced visitation due to negative public perception of the elk population control program could significantly reduce tourists expenditures in the area. Elk damage to private property contiguous with the park would continue to be a nuisance and costly to federal programs instituted to indemnify the owners of damaged property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090364, 489 pages, October 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-30 KW - Biocontrol KW - Cost Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Montana KW - Wild Cave National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=WIND+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WIND CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 756826280; 14068-090364_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population management plan for the Wind Cave National Park of Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. The 28,295-acre park lies in the southwest corner of the state in the southeastern Black Hills region. In addition to extraordinary cave resources, the park contains a variety of surface natural and cultural resources. The park's mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for elk, bison, pronghorn, deer, coyotes, and black-tailed prairie dogs. The population of elk inhabiting the park is largely uncontrolled by natural predation, hunting, or other forces that may have historically kept the number of animals low. As a result of the lack of natural population controls, the elk herd has grown so rapidly that it threatens park resources and depredates crops on neighboring farmlands. In the past, the park's primary elk management tool was the relocation of elk to other areas outside the park. However, with the concurrent discovery of a chronic wasting disease (CWD) among elk wintering in the park and a 2002 memo from the National Park Service Director (NPS 2002b) prohibiting the movement of live animals when a population is known to be infected with CWD, relocation is no longer an option. Therefore, this EIS planning process has been undertaken to examine alternatives to maintain the elk herd at a size such that vegetation, other ungulates, and wildlife, park neighbors, and other park resources would not experience damage due to excessive numbers of elk. Six alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), three action alternatives for initial herd reduction, and two alternatives addressing maintenance of herd size following the initial herd reduction. The two initial herd reduction alternatives would be use as maintenance management plans as well. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make use of gates to keep elk that move out of the park outside the park through hunting season. This would allow hunters to cull the herd without violating park hunting restrictions. Alternative C would provide for the rounding up and shipment of live elk to a processing facility or euthanize elk on-site in the park. Alternative D would use authorized sharpshooters inside the park. Alternative E and F would maintain the size of the herd through either sterilization of a select number of female elk or through the use of chemical contraceptives. The selected alternative plan would guide policy for the adaptive management of elk inhabiting the park, as well as providing a strategy for the integration of monitoring and research, over the next 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the elk herd to a safe, manageable size, removing pressure on forage for other wildlife habitat, potential for epidemic CWD within the herd, and excessive damage to wild plants and to crops on private farmland lying outside the park boundaries. Moreover, the expansion of the out-of-park herd would increase recreational hunting opportunities southwest South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Even at lower levels of elk herd size. Browsing of aspen, oak, and cottonwoods could still prevent their regeneration and could result in a decrease and perhaps loss of this species from certain areas within the park. Soil erosion would be exacerbated in areas where elk congregate. Removal of elk from the park would reduce opportunities for recreational elk viewing. Reduced visitation due to negative public perception of the elk population control program could significantly reduce tourists expenditures in the area. Elk damage to private property contiguous with the park would continue to be a nuisance and costly to federal programs instituted to indemnify the owners of damaged property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090364, 489 pages, October 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-30 KW - Biocontrol KW - Cost Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Montana KW - Wild Cave National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=WIND+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WIND CAVE NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUSTER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16388962; 14068 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population management plan for the Wind Cave National Park of Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. The 28,295-acre park lies in the southwest corner of the state in the southeastern Black Hills region. In addition to extraordinary cave resources, the park contains a variety of surface natural and cultural resources. The park's mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forest provides habitat for elk, bison, pronghorn, deer, coyotes, and black-tailed prairie dogs. The population of elk inhabiting the park is largely uncontrolled by natural predation, hunting, or other forces that may have historically kept the number of animals low. As a result of the lack of natural population controls, the elk herd has grown so rapidly that it threatens park resources and depredates crops on neighboring farmlands. In the past, the park's primary elk management tool was the relocation of elk to other areas outside the park. However, with the concurrent discovery of a chronic wasting disease (CWD) among elk wintering in the park and a 2002 memo from the National Park Service Director (NPS 2002b) prohibiting the movement of live animals when a population is known to be infected with CWD, relocation is no longer an option. Therefore, this EIS planning process has been undertaken to examine alternatives to maintain the elk herd at a size such that vegetation, other ungulates, and wildlife, park neighbors, and other park resources would not experience damage due to excessive numbers of elk. Six alternatives are considered in this final EIS, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), three action alternatives for initial herd reduction, and two alternatives addressing maintenance of herd size following the initial herd reduction. The two initial herd reduction alternatives would be use as maintenance management plans as well. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make use of gates to keep elk that move out of the park outside the park through hunting season. This would allow hunters to cull the herd without violating park hunting restrictions. Alternative C would provide for the rounding up and shipment of live elk to a processing facility or euthanize elk on-site in the park. Alternative D would use authorized sharpshooters inside the park. Alternative E and F would maintain the size of the herd through either sterilization of a select number of female elk or through the use of chemical contraceptives. The selected alternative plan would guide policy for the adaptive management of elk inhabiting the park, as well as providing a strategy for the integration of monitoring and research, over the next 15 to 20 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would reduce the elk herd to a safe, manageable size, removing pressure on forage for other wildlife habitat, potential for epidemic CWD within the herd, and excessive damage to wild plants and to crops on private farmland lying outside the park boundaries. Moreover, the expansion of the out-of-park herd would increase recreational hunting opportunities southwest South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Even at lower levels of elk herd size. Browsing of aspen, oak, and cottonwoods could still prevent their regeneration and could result in a decrease and perhaps loss of this species from certain areas within the park. Soil erosion would be exacerbated in areas where elk congregate. Removal of elk from the park would reduce opportunities for recreational elk viewing. Reduced visitation due to negative public perception of the elk population control program could significantly reduce tourists expenditures in the area. Elk damage to private property contiguous with the park would continue to be a nuisance and costly to federal programs instituted to indemnify the owners of damaged property. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090364, 489 pages, October 22, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-30 KW - Biocontrol KW - Cost Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Montana KW - Wild Cave National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WIND+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=WIND+CAVE+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 1 of 4] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756826663; 14052-090348_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, are proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebue. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this final supplemental EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in violation of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emissions from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090348, Final Supplemental EIS--416 pages, Appendices--445 pages, October 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 2 of 4] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756826624; 14052-090348_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, are proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebue. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this final supplemental EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in violation of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emissions from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090348, Final Supplemental EIS--416 pages, Appendices--445 pages, October 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 3 of 4] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756826328; 14052-090348_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, are proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebue. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this final supplemental EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in violation of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emissions from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090348, Final Supplemental EIS--416 pages, Appendices--445 pages, October 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 4 of 4] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756826252; 14052-090348_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, are proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebue. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this final supplemental EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in violation of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emissions from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090348, Final Supplemental EIS--416 pages, Appendices--445 pages, October 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 36346713; 14052 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, are proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebue. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this final supplemental EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in violation of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emissions from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090348, Final Supplemental EIS--416 pages, Appendices--445 pages, October 2, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826639; 14045-090341_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russel Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The proposed 2010 Use Agreement would require continuing selenium load reductions to meet implementation dates of applicable water quality objectives. The 2001 Requirements Alternative is similar to the proposed action in all aspects except that the selenium and salt loads discharged to Mud Slough would be limited to the less stringent allowances in the 2001 Use Agreement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond December 31, 2009 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488). JF - EPA number: 090341, 1210 pages and maps, September 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES-09-26 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Drainage KW - Economic Assessments KW - Estuaries KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826626; 14045-090341_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russel Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The proposed 2010 Use Agreement would require continuing selenium load reductions to meet implementation dates of applicable water quality objectives. The 2001 Requirements Alternative is similar to the proposed action in all aspects except that the selenium and salt loads discharged to Mud Slough would be limited to the less stringent allowances in the 2001 Use Agreement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond December 31, 2009 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488). JF - EPA number: 090341, 1210 pages and maps, September 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES-09-26 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Drainage KW - Economic Assessments KW - Estuaries KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826263; 14045-090341_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russel Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The proposed 2010 Use Agreement would require continuing selenium load reductions to meet implementation dates of applicable water quality objectives. The 2001 Requirements Alternative is similar to the proposed action in all aspects except that the selenium and salt loads discharged to Mud Slough would be limited to the less stringent allowances in the 2001 Use Agreement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond December 31, 2009 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488). JF - EPA number: 090341, 1210 pages and maps, September 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES-09-26 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Drainage KW - Economic Assessments KW - Estuaries KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - GRASSLAND BYPASS PROJECT, 2010-2019 (2010 USE AGREEMENT), SAN LUIS DRAIN TO MUD SLOUGH, FRESNO, MERCER, AND STANISLAUS COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826260; 14045-090341_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The continued use of the San Luis Drain (Drain) to convey agricultural drain water through adjacent management areas to Mud Slough, a tributary of the San Joaquin River, in Fresno and Mercer counties, California is considered. The proposal would involve continuation of the Grassland Bypass Project (2010 Use Agreement) for the period extending from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019. The original 1995 agreement establishing the project allowed for the use of the drain through September 30, 2001. A 2001 agreement allowed continuation of the use of the drain through December 31, 2009. The water is conveyed though the Drain to separate unusable agricultural drain water discharged from the Grassland Drainage Area (GDA) from wetland water supply conveyance channels and to facilitate drainage management that maintains the viability of agriculture in the project area and promotes continuous improvement of the quality of water in the San Joaquin River. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would consolidate subsurface drain flows on a regional basis and use a portion of the federal Drain to convey drain flows around wetland habitat areas. The project would collect drain water from the 97,400-acre Grassland Drainage Area and an adjacent 1,100-acre area and place it into the Drain at a point near Russel Avenue (mile post 105.72). The drain water would travel in the Drain to its northern terminus at mile post 78.65. At that point, the drainage would enter Mud Slough and continue six miles before reaching the San Joaquin River three miles upstream of its confluence with the Merced River. The proposed 2010 Use Agreement would require continuing selenium load reductions to meet implementation dates of applicable water quality objectives. The 2001 Requirements Alternative is similar to the proposed action in all aspects except that the selenium and salt loads discharged to Mud Slough would be limited to the less stringent allowances in the 2001 Use Agreement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continuation of the project would ensure that any use of the Drain beyond December 31, 2009 remained consistent with long-term drainage options and provided for compliance with applicable water quality control programs. Approximately 93 miles of wetland channels would be protected. Use of the Drain would improve water quality in the San Joaquin River and the associated delta and estuary. Salinity standards would continue to be met, and impacts of salinity in the affected area would continue to be monitored. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, water quality within six miles of Mud Slough and the downstream section of the San Joaquin River would be affected by agricultural drainage and the associated salinity and nutrient levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, and San Luis Act (P.L. 86-488). JF - EPA number: 090341, 1210 pages and maps, September 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES-09-26 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Drainage KW - Economic Assessments KW - Estuaries KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Soils Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRASSLAND+BYPASS+PROJECT%2C+2010-2019+%282010+USE+AGREEMENT%29%2C+SAN+LUIS+DRAIN+TO+MUD+SLOUGH%2C+FRESNO%2C+MERCER%2C+AND+STANISLAUS+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento and Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. AN - 756826882; 14041-090337_0001 AB - PURPOSE: An increase in the number of herbicides available for use on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Oregon, and expansion of their use beyond the noxious weed management program are proposed. Noxious weeds are spreading on BLM lands at the rate of 144,000 acres per year. and the existing BLM vegetation management program is unable to effectively address the rate of spread or treat all species. New herbicides are available that would better control weeds, better meet other non-commodity vegetation management objectives, and have fewer adverse effects on humans and the environment. This EIS tiers to the June 2007 Final Programmatic EIS and the September 29, 2007 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) which would perpetuate the existing vegetation management program, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 3 would add seven herbicides west and nine herbicides east of the Cascades, to the four herbicides already being used to control noxious weeds. Herbicide use would be expanded to include the treatment of other invasive plants, and the treatment of native plants to control invasive pests and diseases; Alternative 4, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would add 8 and 12 herbicides and add (to the uses described in Alternative 3) native vegetation control in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites, and conduct wildlife habitat improvement for rare species, and; Alternative 5, would add 14 herbicides statewide to the four already being used, and expand herbicide use to include any non-commodity objective. An alternative of No Herbicide Use (Alternative 1) is also included for comparison purposes. Herbicide use would increase from 16,700 acres per year under the No Action Alternative to 45,000 acres per year under the proposed action. Because newer, more target-specific herbicides would be used, the actual pounds of herbicide applied would increase less than 50 percent. All but 3,000 acres of the increase would be east of the Cascades, and 11,000 acres of the increase is estimated to be applications on invasive annual grasses including medusahead and cheatgrass, usually to help with restoration of native plants following wildfires or prescribed burns. Nine thousand acres of the increase would be to treat native vegetation causing safety and maintenance issues on rights-of-way, administrative sites, or recreation sites. Herbicides would also be available to treat native plants to control exotic pests and diseases in State-designated quarantine areas, like the area currently designated for Sudden Oak Death control in southwestern Oregon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce noxious weed spread to 6 percent per year and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years when compared to the No Action Alternative. Herbicide use would reduce native vegetation control costs in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites by nearly $1 million per year. Alternative 4 would also provide herbicides for about 5,000 acres of habitat improvement for sensitive and federally listed species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Elements of the alternatives would have potential for adverse resource and human health effects but standard operating procedures and mitigation measures would minimize herbicide risks to negligible levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629), Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7702), and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090337, Draft EIS--573 pages, Summary--24 pages, September 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: BLM-DES-09-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. AN - 756826747; 14041-090337_0002 AB - PURPOSE: An increase in the number of herbicides available for use on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Oregon, and expansion of their use beyond the noxious weed management program are proposed. Noxious weeds are spreading on BLM lands at the rate of 144,000 acres per year. and the existing BLM vegetation management program is unable to effectively address the rate of spread or treat all species. New herbicides are available that would better control weeds, better meet other non-commodity vegetation management objectives, and have fewer adverse effects on humans and the environment. This EIS tiers to the June 2007 Final Programmatic EIS and the September 29, 2007 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) which would perpetuate the existing vegetation management program, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 3 would add seven herbicides west and nine herbicides east of the Cascades, to the four herbicides already being used to control noxious weeds. Herbicide use would be expanded to include the treatment of other invasive plants, and the treatment of native plants to control invasive pests and diseases; Alternative 4, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would add 8 and 12 herbicides and add (to the uses described in Alternative 3) native vegetation control in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites, and conduct wildlife habitat improvement for rare species, and; Alternative 5, would add 14 herbicides statewide to the four already being used, and expand herbicide use to include any non-commodity objective. An alternative of No Herbicide Use (Alternative 1) is also included for comparison purposes. Herbicide use would increase from 16,700 acres per year under the No Action Alternative to 45,000 acres per year under the proposed action. Because newer, more target-specific herbicides would be used, the actual pounds of herbicide applied would increase less than 50 percent. All but 3,000 acres of the increase would be east of the Cascades, and 11,000 acres of the increase is estimated to be applications on invasive annual grasses including medusahead and cheatgrass, usually to help with restoration of native plants following wildfires or prescribed burns. Nine thousand acres of the increase would be to treat native vegetation causing safety and maintenance issues on rights-of-way, administrative sites, or recreation sites. Herbicides would also be available to treat native plants to control exotic pests and diseases in State-designated quarantine areas, like the area currently designated for Sudden Oak Death control in southwestern Oregon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce noxious weed spread to 6 percent per year and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years when compared to the No Action Alternative. Herbicide use would reduce native vegetation control costs in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites by nearly $1 million per year. Alternative 4 would also provide herbicides for about 5,000 acres of habitat improvement for sensitive and federally listed species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Elements of the alternatives would have potential for adverse resource and human health effects but standard operating procedures and mitigation measures would minimize herbicide risks to negligible levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629), Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7702), and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090337, Draft EIS--573 pages, Summary--24 pages, September 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: BLM-DES-09-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. AN - 756826746; 14041-090337_0004 AB - PURPOSE: An increase in the number of herbicides available for use on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Oregon, and expansion of their use beyond the noxious weed management program are proposed. Noxious weeds are spreading on BLM lands at the rate of 144,000 acres per year. and the existing BLM vegetation management program is unable to effectively address the rate of spread or treat all species. New herbicides are available that would better control weeds, better meet other non-commodity vegetation management objectives, and have fewer adverse effects on humans and the environment. This EIS tiers to the June 2007 Final Programmatic EIS and the September 29, 2007 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) which would perpetuate the existing vegetation management program, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 3 would add seven herbicides west and nine herbicides east of the Cascades, to the four herbicides already being used to control noxious weeds. Herbicide use would be expanded to include the treatment of other invasive plants, and the treatment of native plants to control invasive pests and diseases; Alternative 4, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would add 8 and 12 herbicides and add (to the uses described in Alternative 3) native vegetation control in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites, and conduct wildlife habitat improvement for rare species, and; Alternative 5, would add 14 herbicides statewide to the four already being used, and expand herbicide use to include any non-commodity objective. An alternative of No Herbicide Use (Alternative 1) is also included for comparison purposes. Herbicide use would increase from 16,700 acres per year under the No Action Alternative to 45,000 acres per year under the proposed action. Because newer, more target-specific herbicides would be used, the actual pounds of herbicide applied would increase less than 50 percent. All but 3,000 acres of the increase would be east of the Cascades, and 11,000 acres of the increase is estimated to be applications on invasive annual grasses including medusahead and cheatgrass, usually to help with restoration of native plants following wildfires or prescribed burns. Nine thousand acres of the increase would be to treat native vegetation causing safety and maintenance issues on rights-of-way, administrative sites, or recreation sites. Herbicides would also be available to treat native plants to control exotic pests and diseases in State-designated quarantine areas, like the area currently designated for Sudden Oak Death control in southwestern Oregon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce noxious weed spread to 6 percent per year and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years when compared to the No Action Alternative. Herbicide use would reduce native vegetation control costs in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites by nearly $1 million per year. Alternative 4 would also provide herbicides for about 5,000 acres of habitat improvement for sensitive and federally listed species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Elements of the alternatives would have potential for adverse resource and human health effects but standard operating procedures and mitigation measures would minimize herbicide risks to negligible levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629), Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7702), and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090337, Draft EIS--573 pages, Summary--24 pages, September 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: BLM-DES-09-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. AN - 756826488; 14041-090337_0003 AB - PURPOSE: An increase in the number of herbicides available for use on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Oregon, and expansion of their use beyond the noxious weed management program are proposed. Noxious weeds are spreading on BLM lands at the rate of 144,000 acres per year. and the existing BLM vegetation management program is unable to effectively address the rate of spread or treat all species. New herbicides are available that would better control weeds, better meet other non-commodity vegetation management objectives, and have fewer adverse effects on humans and the environment. This EIS tiers to the June 2007 Final Programmatic EIS and the September 29, 2007 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) which would perpetuate the existing vegetation management program, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 3 would add seven herbicides west and nine herbicides east of the Cascades, to the four herbicides already being used to control noxious weeds. Herbicide use would be expanded to include the treatment of other invasive plants, and the treatment of native plants to control invasive pests and diseases; Alternative 4, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would add 8 and 12 herbicides and add (to the uses described in Alternative 3) native vegetation control in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites, and conduct wildlife habitat improvement for rare species, and; Alternative 5, would add 14 herbicides statewide to the four already being used, and expand herbicide use to include any non-commodity objective. An alternative of No Herbicide Use (Alternative 1) is also included for comparison purposes. Herbicide use would increase from 16,700 acres per year under the No Action Alternative to 45,000 acres per year under the proposed action. Because newer, more target-specific herbicides would be used, the actual pounds of herbicide applied would increase less than 50 percent. All but 3,000 acres of the increase would be east of the Cascades, and 11,000 acres of the increase is estimated to be applications on invasive annual grasses including medusahead and cheatgrass, usually to help with restoration of native plants following wildfires or prescribed burns. Nine thousand acres of the increase would be to treat native vegetation causing safety and maintenance issues on rights-of-way, administrative sites, or recreation sites. Herbicides would also be available to treat native plants to control exotic pests and diseases in State-designated quarantine areas, like the area currently designated for Sudden Oak Death control in southwestern Oregon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce noxious weed spread to 6 percent per year and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years when compared to the No Action Alternative. Herbicide use would reduce native vegetation control costs in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites by nearly $1 million per year. Alternative 4 would also provide herbicides for about 5,000 acres of habitat improvement for sensitive and federally listed species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Elements of the alternatives would have potential for adverse resource and human health effects but standard operating procedures and mitigation measures would minimize herbicide risks to negligible levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629), Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7702), and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090337, Draft EIS--573 pages, Summary--24 pages, September 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: BLM-DES-09-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. AN - 36345565; 14041 AB - PURPOSE: An increase in the number of herbicides available for use on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Oregon, and expansion of their use beyond the noxious weed management program are proposed. Noxious weeds are spreading on BLM lands at the rate of 144,000 acres per year. and the existing BLM vegetation management program is unable to effectively address the rate of spread or treat all species. New herbicides are available that would better control weeds, better meet other non-commodity vegetation management objectives, and have fewer adverse effects on humans and the environment. This EIS tiers to the June 2007 Final Programmatic EIS and the September 29, 2007 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) which would perpetuate the existing vegetation management program, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 3 would add seven herbicides west and nine herbicides east of the Cascades, to the four herbicides already being used to control noxious weeds. Herbicide use would be expanded to include the treatment of other invasive plants, and the treatment of native plants to control invasive pests and diseases; Alternative 4, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would add 8 and 12 herbicides and add (to the uses described in Alternative 3) native vegetation control in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites, and conduct wildlife habitat improvement for rare species, and; Alternative 5, would add 14 herbicides statewide to the four already being used, and expand herbicide use to include any non-commodity objective. An alternative of No Herbicide Use (Alternative 1) is also included for comparison purposes. Herbicide use would increase from 16,700 acres per year under the No Action Alternative to 45,000 acres per year under the proposed action. Because newer, more target-specific herbicides would be used, the actual pounds of herbicide applied would increase less than 50 percent. All but 3,000 acres of the increase would be east of the Cascades, and 11,000 acres of the increase is estimated to be applications on invasive annual grasses including medusahead and cheatgrass, usually to help with restoration of native plants following wildfires or prescribed burns. Nine thousand acres of the increase would be to treat native vegetation causing safety and maintenance issues on rights-of-way, administrative sites, or recreation sites. Herbicides would also be available to treat native plants to control exotic pests and diseases in State-designated quarantine areas, like the area currently designated for Sudden Oak Death control in southwestern Oregon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce noxious weed spread to 6 percent per year and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years when compared to the No Action Alternative. Herbicide use would reduce native vegetation control costs in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites by nearly $1 million per year. Alternative 4 would also provide herbicides for about 5,000 acres of habitat improvement for sensitive and federally listed species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Elements of the alternatives would have potential for adverse resource and human health effects but standard operating procedures and mitigation measures would minimize herbicide risks to negligible levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629), Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7702), and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. JF - EPA number: 090337, Draft EIS--573 pages, Summary--24 pages, September 25, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: BLM-DES-09-49 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 24 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125520; 13613-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 23 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125518; 13613-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 22 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125516; 13613-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 21 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125514; 13613-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 20 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125511; 13613-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 19 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125507; 13613-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 10 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125504; 13613-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 9 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125501; 13613-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 8 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125498; 13613-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 7 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125496; 13613-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 6 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125492; 13613-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 5 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125490; 13613-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 4 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125487; 13613-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 3 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125486; 13613-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 2 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125481; 13613-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 1 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125477; 13613-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 18 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125285; 13613-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 17 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125279; 13613-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 16 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125273; 13613-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 15 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125263; 13613-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 14 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125256; 13613-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 13 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125249; 13613-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 12 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125241; 13613-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 11 of 24] T2 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 873125239; 13613-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOBUK-SEWARD PENINSULA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FAIRBANKS DISTRICT OFFICE AND ANCHORAGE FIELD OFFICE, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36343990; 13613 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general land and resources management plan for the 31-million-acre Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area of Alaska are proposed. Within the planning area, the management plan would address 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including 8.2 million acres selected by the state of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance offers or until the selections are relinquished to the BLM due to overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Alaskan corporation land), state land, and lands managed by other federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the resource management plan would apply only to BLM-managed lands within the planning areas. Currently, management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan of 1982. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation resources, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and cultural and natural resources management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2007. This record of decision approves the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described below. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative. Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One special recreation management area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River area to focus management on developed recreation use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C would emphasize active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than under Alternative B or D and, in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs would be designated, with specific measures instituted to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. All areas would be designated as limited to off-highway vehicles (OHV) to protect habitat, soil, and vegetation resources. Most Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) withdrawals would be revoked, but some withdrawals would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative would treat lands selected by the state and by Native Alaskan or village corporations as if these lands were to be remained in long-term federal ownership. Alternative D would emphasize a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement or resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one research natural area (RNA), and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The sole RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative would include interim and long-term management strategies for state- and Native Alaskan-selected lands. All unencumbered federal lands in the planning area would be designated as limited to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On state and Native lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the state's allowable uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would balance multiple-use and protection of resources in a sustainable fashion. Increased resource development, particularly development of oil and gas resources, would be promoted. Resource extraction would boost local economies. OHV limitations would result in loss resource damage than under Alternative A or B. Seasonal closures or limitations on existing or designated trails within the SRMAs would reduce damage to natural and related recreational resources. The ACECs and RNA would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploration and exploitation activities and OHV use would disturb and remove soils and destroy vegetation, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat and sedimentation of streams and the associated degradation of fish habitat within the affected watersheds. These activities could also reduce forage available for livestock grazing permit holders. Access to public lands would become more difficult as Native Alaskan corporation entitlements are met, and weight limitations on OHVs would reduce the mix of vehicles allowed to access resources within the planning areas. Dispersed recreation activities could impact the Iditarod National Historic Trail, Visual aesthetics and other recreational values, including solitude offered by potential wilderness areas, would be degraded in areas affected by exploitative development and OHV use. Habitat for special status plant and animal species would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0362D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0031F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070398, 260 pages and maps, September 9, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 07-39 KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Indian Reservations KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=KOBUK-SEWARD+PENINSULA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FAIRBANKS+DISTRICT+OFFICE+AND+ANCHORAGE+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 28 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126772; 14001-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 27 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126768; 14001-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 26 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126762; 14001-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 25 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126760; 14001-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 24 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126757; 14001-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 5 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126756; 14001-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 4 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126755; 14001-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 3 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126751; 14001-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126751?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126748; 14001-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 23 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126624; 14001-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 22 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126620; 14001-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 21 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126614; 14001-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 20 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126603; 14001-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 19 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126597; 14001-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 11 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126588; 14001-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 10 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126581; 14001-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 9 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126576; 14001-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 30 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126567; 14001-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 8 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126563; 14001-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 29 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126562; 14001-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 7 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126556; 14001-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 6 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126552; 14001-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126545; 14001-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 18 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126222; 14001-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 17 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126217; 14001-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 16 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126208; 14001-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 15 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126197; 14001-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 14 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126187; 14001-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 13 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126180; 14001-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 12 of 30] T2 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 873126171; 14001-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 756826432; 13999-090295_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project. The proposed project would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's compressor station number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 20 mainline valves, and three pig launcher and pig receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to midwest markets. Five major route alternatives are evaluated and would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 090295, 612 pages, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 756826428; 13999-090295_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project. The proposed project would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's compressor station number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 20 mainline valves, and three pig launcher and pig receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to midwest markets. Five major route alternatives are evaluated and would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 090295, 612 pages, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 756826424; 13999-090295_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project. The proposed project would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's compressor station number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 20 mainline valves, and three pig launcher and pig receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to midwest markets. Five major route alternatives are evaluated and would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 090295, 612 pages, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 756826271; 13999-090295_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project. The proposed project would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's compressor station number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 20 mainline valves, and three pig launcher and pig receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to midwest markets. Five major route alternatives are evaluated and would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 090295, 612 pages, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BISON PIPELINE PROJECT, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. AN - 36353285; 13999 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary facilities in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota are proposed. The proponent, Bison Pipeline LLC, filed an application on April 20, 2009 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities collectively known as the Bison Pipeline Project. The proposed project would transport up to 477 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in the Powder River Basin to midwestern markets, primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Approximately 302.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline would be constructed from a point near Dead Horse, Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, to an interconnect with Northern Border Pipeline Company's pipeline near Northern Border's compressor station number 6 in Morton County, North Dakota. Additional construction would include one new compressor station, two new meter stations, 20 mainline valves, and three pig launcher and pig receiver facilities. The new compressor station would be located in Hettinger County, North Dakota and have a total capacity of 4,700 horsepower of compression. Dependent upon approval, the Bison Pipeline Project would begin operation in November, 2010. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to general construction, geology and soils, and water resources. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. No viable system alternatives could be identified and no existing pipelines would be able to transport the large volumes of natural gas from the Powder River Basin directly to midwest markets. Five major route alternatives are evaluated and would not offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed route. Route variations found to offer environmental advantages would be incorporated into the proposed project and minor alignment shifts would continue to be made prior to and during construction to accommodate site-specific circumstances. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity for producers in the Powder River Basin and would replace declining Canadian supply and satisfy increasing demand in the midwest market. Enhanced reliability and diversity of supply would minimize reliance on more costly energy sources and these objectives would be achieved with minimal pipeline construction and environmental impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Northern Border system. Implementation would provide the ability for future expansion to access the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming supply basins. Construction and operation would positively impact local spending, employment, and tax income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed pipeline would affect 37 perennial streams. Affected vegetative communities would include 3,590 acres of open land and 1,671 acres of agricultural land. A total of 41 parcels of Conservation Reserve Program lands and 105 riparian wetlands would be crossed but would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Thirteen federally listed species occur in the project vicinity and construction and operation would adversely affect piping plover, whooping crane, interior least tern, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, blowout penstemon, and Ute ladies'-tresses. Known habitat for the greater sage-grouse and black-tailed prairie dog would be crossed by the project and individuals could be impacted. Visual resources would be affected by installation of aboveground facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 090295, 612 pages, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0233D KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - North Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=BISON+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+MONTANA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANDAN, HIDATSA, AND ARIKARA NATION'S CLEAN FUELS REFINERY PROJECT, FORT BERTHOLD INDIAN RESERVATION, WARD COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 36350032; 14001 AB - PURPOSE: The trust transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of 469 acres of land within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northeastern Ward County, North Dakota is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a 13,000-barrel-per-day clean fuels refinery and the growing of hay to feed buffalo. The refinery, to be owned by the MHA Nation, would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The refinery and hay operation would be located on a site near Makoti. The refinery site would occupy 190 acres, while the hay operation would occupy the remaining 279 acres. Alternative 1 and Alternative A represent the proponent's proposed actions and would include the development of the refinery and forage production operation after acceptance of the land into trust by the BIA (Alternative 1) and the issuance of an NPDES permit by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the effluent discharges related to refinery operation (Alternative A). In addition, this final EIS considers three construction alternatives, and a No Action Alternative with respect to the refinery, and three effluent discharge alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the NPDES permit. The proposed refinery would use: 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude oil; 3,000 BPSD of field butane; 6.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; 300 barrels of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From this feedstock, the refinery would produce 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would have an economic life of well in excess of 20 years. At the end of the refinery's economic life, MHA Nation would decommission and reclaim the facility. The Department of Interior (DOI) has identified Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative in order to minimize the potential liability of DOI and its bureaus. Under Alternative 3, DOI would not place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the MHA Nation. EPA has identified Alternative A as its preferred alternative. Both agencies recommend that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with Alternative 4. Under construction Alternative 4, impacts to wetlands would be reduced and tanks would be used instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the facility would result in socioeconomic benefits for the county, the Tribe, and its members. Construction of the refinery would employ hundreds of local workers, most of whom would be residents of the reservation. In addition to direct job creation, the preferred alternative would spur job growth in the county. The additional revenues directly received by the tribe by way of fees and taxes would help the tribe develop the political cohesion necessary to obtain self-sufficiency, self-determination, and strong tribal government. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetative cover and soils, including cropland, and the associated wildlife habitat now occupying the proposed refinery site would be removed for the duration of the life of the refinery and until reclamation activities could be completed. Wetlands would also be displaced and would be more difficult to reinstate following closure of the plant. Leakage from the refinery and changes in area hydrology would result in local degradation of the regional aquifer. The presence of an industrial plant in the area would mar the visual and olfactory aesthetics of the rural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090297, 465 pages and maps, August 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Employment KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Refineries KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Dakota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MANDAN%2C+HIDATSA%2C+AND+ARIKARA+NATION%27S+CLEAN+FUELS+REFINERY+PROJECT%2C+FORT+BERTHOLD+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+WARD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Aberdeen, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 756826770; 13997-090293_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Action is needed to address declining forest regeneration and to ensure the protection and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife, and the protection of cultural resources. Ecosystem studies have determined that excessive browsing by deer in VFNHP has also adversely affected the natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest landscapes. In addition, deer in the vicinity of the park suffering from chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other risk factors have resulted in an elevated risk level for the oversized park population. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation and special status plant species, white-tailed deer population, other wildlife populations, cultural landscapes, historic structures, archaeological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics and land uses adjacent to the park, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would implement a nonlethal management program involving rotational fencing of selected forest areas of the park and the use of reproductive controls, when available and feasible. The park would also increase its CWD surveillance efforts. Alternative C would combine culling the animals via sharpshooting with firearms with limited capture and euthanasia efforts. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would include the reproductive controls that would be implemented under Alternative B and the lethal actions included in Alternative C. Both alternatives C and D would implement a full CWD response plan, which includes increased surveillance and reduction of the herd to minimize the probability of a CWD epidemic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide a deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the VFNHP. Damage done by deer overbrowsing within this historic landscape would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090293, 477 pages and maps, August 18, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 09-19 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Valley Forge National Historical Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 756826716; 13997-090293_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Action is needed to address declining forest regeneration and to ensure the protection and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife, and the protection of cultural resources. Ecosystem studies have determined that excessive browsing by deer in VFNHP has also adversely affected the natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest landscapes. In addition, deer in the vicinity of the park suffering from chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other risk factors have resulted in an elevated risk level for the oversized park population. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation and special status plant species, white-tailed deer population, other wildlife populations, cultural landscapes, historic structures, archaeological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics and land uses adjacent to the park, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would implement a nonlethal management program involving rotational fencing of selected forest areas of the park and the use of reproductive controls, when available and feasible. The park would also increase its CWD surveillance efforts. Alternative C would combine culling the animals via sharpshooting with firearms with limited capture and euthanasia efforts. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would include the reproductive controls that would be implemented under Alternative B and the lethal actions included in Alternative C. Both alternatives C and D would implement a full CWD response plan, which includes increased surveillance and reduction of the herd to minimize the probability of a CWD epidemic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide a deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the VFNHP. Damage done by deer overbrowsing within this historic landscape would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090293, 477 pages and maps, August 18, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 09-19 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Valley Forge National Historical Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 756826368; 13997-090293_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Action is needed to address declining forest regeneration and to ensure the protection and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife, and the protection of cultural resources. Ecosystem studies have determined that excessive browsing by deer in VFNHP has also adversely affected the natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest landscapes. In addition, deer in the vicinity of the park suffering from chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other risk factors have resulted in an elevated risk level for the oversized park population. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation and special status plant species, white-tailed deer population, other wildlife populations, cultural landscapes, historic structures, archaeological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics and land uses adjacent to the park, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would implement a nonlethal management program involving rotational fencing of selected forest areas of the park and the use of reproductive controls, when available and feasible. The park would also increase its CWD surveillance efforts. Alternative C would combine culling the animals via sharpshooting with firearms with limited capture and euthanasia efforts. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would include the reproductive controls that would be implemented under Alternative B and the lethal actions included in Alternative C. Both alternatives C and D would implement a full CWD response plan, which includes increased surveillance and reduction of the herd to minimize the probability of a CWD epidemic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide a deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the VFNHP. Damage done by deer overbrowsing within this historic landscape would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090293, 477 pages and maps, August 18, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 09-19 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Valley Forge National Historical Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-22 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WARNER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN, LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK, MINERAL, PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WARNER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN, LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK, MINERAL, PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826193; 13989-090285_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive site plan to address natural and cultural resource conflicts and to improve circulation and parking in Warner Valley, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Plumas County, California is proposed. Lassen Volcanic National Park is a 106,372-acre park located in Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, and Tehama counties. It is a unique example of a dynamic geologic landscape and it preserves examples of several types of volcanoes and contains a network of geothermal resources including boiling springs, mudpots, and fumaroles. In 1972 Congress designated 75 percent of the park as the Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. Warner Valley is located in the south central part of the park and is the location of Drakesbad Guest Ranch, a concession-operated lodging facility. The center of the valley features Drakesbad Meadow, one of the largest known fens in the western United States, and a campground and several trails, including the Pacific Crest Trail. The Warner Valley includes Dream Lake Dam, which impounds a 2.7-acre lake that is up to 5-feet deep and is a contributing resource of the historic district. Drakesbad Guest Ranch guests use the lake for fishing, bird watching and canoeing. Lack of maintenance at the dam and the impact of beaver activity has left the dam in a weakened state with a risk of failure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would: 1) restore wetlands throughout Warner Valley and permanently fill ditches with appropriate soil in Drakesbad Meadow; 2) create a concession housing and service center outside of the Drakesbad Guest Ranch Historic District composed of tent cabins surrounding a single-story bathhouse building; 3) remove Dream Lake Dam and allow the area to revert to a riparian wetland complex. Alternative 3 differs in that the proposed housing would consist of a two-story dormitory with bathrooms, and Dream Lake Dam would be re-constructed rather than removed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would improve visitor experience through attention to educational, interpretive, and recreational opportunities in the park and protection of wilderness values. Proposed actions would protect and restore the hydrologic and biologic functions of the damaged fen wetland in the Warner Valley, improve trail connections and campgrounds, and protect public health and public and employee safety by addressing structural concerns of Dream Lake Dam. The removal of noncontributing features would preserve the historic viewshed of Drakesbad Guest Ranch and the view to Mount Harkness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities under Alternative 2 would impact vegetation and wildlife. Removal of Dream Lake Dam and the lake would have an adverse impact on the cultural landscape. Archaeological resources could be damaged from new construction, demolition, and rehabilitation of existing facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090285, 180 pages, August 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Volcanoes KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Lassen Volcanic National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WARNER+VALLEY+COMPREHENSIVE+SITE+PLAN%2C+LASSEN+VOLCANIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MINERAL%2C+PLUMAS+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WARNER+VALLEY+COMPREHENSIVE+SITE+PLAN%2C+LASSEN+VOLCANIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MINERAL%2C+PLUMAS+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mineral, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 756825816; 13990-090286_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a fishery management plan (FMP) to guide fishery management decisions over the next five to 10 years for Biscayne National Park (BISC) in Homestead, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Located in southeastern Florida, the 173,000-acre BISC is 95 percent marine and includes a diversity of habitats, including essential fish habitat (EFH) for numerous species of ecologically important fish and invertebrates. BISC's boundaries range from the eastern continental shoreline across Biscayne Bay and numerous key islands to the 60-foot depth contour of the Atlantic Ocean. Recreational and commercial fishing occur in both bay and ocean waters. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would maintain the status quo, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, minor changes from current management strategies would maintain fisheries resources and habitat conditions at or above current levels and additional actions would be taken only if park fisheries resources or recreational fishing experience decline. Alternative 3 would implement moderate changes from current management strategies through moderate decreases in recreational harvest, limits on spearfishing, and establishment of a recreational permit system. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would rebuild and conserve park fisheries resources through further reduction in fishing-related habitat impacts. The number of commercial fishers would decrease over time via establishment of a non-transferable permit system. Management actions would be enacted to increase the abundance and average size of targeted fish and invertebrate species by at least 20 percent over current conditions. Initially these actions would focus on frequently harvested species such as grouper, snapper, hogfish, and spiny lobster. Future efforts could include less-impacted species such as grunts and barracuda, and catch-and-release species such as bonefish and permit. BISC would seek to establish coral reef protection areas (CRPAs) to delineate coral reef habitat on which lobster and crab traps could not be deployed. Alternative 5 would seek to restore park fisheries resources more substantially and would require the most stringent fishing regulations among the alternatives under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would ensure conservation and management of BISC's fisheries and fishery resources and could reverse the decline from historical levels due increased fishing pressure. Damage to benthic habitats from crab traps would decrease. The increase in size and abundance of targeted species and the reduction in marine debris would result in a positive effect on snorkeling and scuba diving experience. The establishment of CRPAs would result in a decrease in damage to reef habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, manatees and sea turtles would continue to be negatively affected by boat traffic. new regulations would impact commercial fishing activities as no new commercial fisheries would be allowed to develop and future growth of commercial fisherman would be prevented. On a long-term basis an eventual complete cessation of commercial fishing within the park would be predicted with socioeconomic consequences to individuals and communities LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 96-199. JF - EPA number: 090286, Draft EIS--225 pages, August 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Regulations KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-199, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WARNER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN, LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK, MINERAL, PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36353003; 13989 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive site plan to address natural and cultural resource conflicts and to improve circulation and parking in Warner Valley, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Plumas County, California is proposed. Lassen Volcanic National Park is a 106,372-acre park located in Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, and Tehama counties. It is a unique example of a dynamic geologic landscape and it preserves examples of several types of volcanoes and contains a network of geothermal resources including boiling springs, mudpots, and fumaroles. In 1972 Congress designated 75 percent of the park as the Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. Warner Valley is located in the south central part of the park and is the location of Drakesbad Guest Ranch, a concession-operated lodging facility. The center of the valley features Drakesbad Meadow, one of the largest known fens in the western United States, and a campground and several trails, including the Pacific Crest Trail. The Warner Valley includes Dream Lake Dam, which impounds a 2.7-acre lake that is up to 5-feet deep and is a contributing resource of the historic district. Drakesbad Guest Ranch guests use the lake for fishing, bird watching and canoeing. Lack of maintenance at the dam and the impact of beaver activity has left the dam in a weakened state with a risk of failure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would: 1) restore wetlands throughout Warner Valley and permanently fill ditches with appropriate soil in Drakesbad Meadow; 2) create a concession housing and service center outside of the Drakesbad Guest Ranch Historic District composed of tent cabins surrounding a single-story bathhouse building; 3) remove Dream Lake Dam and allow the area to revert to a riparian wetland complex. Alternative 3 differs in that the proposed housing would consist of a two-story dormitory with bathrooms, and Dream Lake Dam would be re-constructed rather than removed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would improve visitor experience through attention to educational, interpretive, and recreational opportunities in the park and protection of wilderness values. Proposed actions would protect and restore the hydrologic and biologic functions of the damaged fen wetland in the Warner Valley, improve trail connections and campgrounds, and protect public health and public and employee safety by addressing structural concerns of Dream Lake Dam. The removal of noncontributing features would preserve the historic viewshed of Drakesbad Guest Ranch and the view to Mount Harkness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities under Alternative 2 would impact vegetation and wildlife. Removal of Dream Lake Dam and the lake would have an adverse impact on the cultural landscape. Archaeological resources could be damaged from new construction, demolition, and rehabilitation of existing facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090285, 180 pages, August 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Volcanoes KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Lassen Volcanic National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WARNER+VALLEY+COMPREHENSIVE+SITE+PLAN%2C+LASSEN+VOLCANIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MINERAL%2C+PLUMAS+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WARNER+VALLEY+COMPREHENSIVE+SITE+PLAN%2C+LASSEN+VOLCANIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MINERAL%2C+PLUMAS+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mineral, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK, HOMESTEAD, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 15224321; 13990 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a fishery management plan (FMP) to guide fishery management decisions over the next five to 10 years for Biscayne National Park (BISC) in Homestead, Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Located in southeastern Florida, the 173,000-acre BISC is 95 percent marine and includes a diversity of habitats, including essential fish habitat (EFH) for numerous species of ecologically important fish and invertebrates. BISC's boundaries range from the eastern continental shoreline across Biscayne Bay and numerous key islands to the 60-foot depth contour of the Atlantic Ocean. Recreational and commercial fishing occur in both bay and ocean waters. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would maintain the status quo, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, minor changes from current management strategies would maintain fisheries resources and habitat conditions at or above current levels and additional actions would be taken only if park fisheries resources or recreational fishing experience decline. Alternative 3 would implement moderate changes from current management strategies through moderate decreases in recreational harvest, limits on spearfishing, and establishment of a recreational permit system. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would rebuild and conserve park fisheries resources through further reduction in fishing-related habitat impacts. The number of commercial fishers would decrease over time via establishment of a non-transferable permit system. Management actions would be enacted to increase the abundance and average size of targeted fish and invertebrate species by at least 20 percent over current conditions. Initially these actions would focus on frequently harvested species such as grouper, snapper, hogfish, and spiny lobster. Future efforts could include less-impacted species such as grunts and barracuda, and catch-and-release species such as bonefish and permit. BISC would seek to establish coral reef protection areas (CRPAs) to delineate coral reef habitat on which lobster and crab traps could not be deployed. Alternative 5 would seek to restore park fisheries resources more substantially and would require the most stringent fishing regulations among the alternatives under consideration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would ensure conservation and management of BISC's fisheries and fishery resources and could reverse the decline from historical levels due increased fishing pressure. Damage to benthic habitats from crab traps would decrease. The increase in size and abundance of targeted species and the reduction in marine debris would result in a positive effect on snorkeling and scuba diving experience. The establishment of CRPAs would result in a decrease in damage to reef habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, manatees and sea turtles would continue to be negatively affected by boat traffic. new regulations would impact commercial fishing activities as no new commercial fisheries would be allowed to develop and future growth of commercial fisherman would be prevented. On a long-term basis an eventual complete cessation of commercial fishing within the park would be predicted with socioeconomic consequences to individuals and communities LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 96-199. JF - EPA number: 090286, Draft EIS--225 pages, August 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Conservation KW - Corals KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Regulations KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Florida KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-199, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15224321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BISCAYNE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HOMESTEAD%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826497; 13987-090283_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin is proposed. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula, includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shoreline. Eighty percent of the land area of the 69,372-acre park was designated as wilderness in December 2004. The islands range in size from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island and are spread out over a portion of Lake Superior nearly 290,000 acres in size. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves; spectacular sea caves; some of the largest stands of remnant old-growth forests in the upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. The Apostle Islands region is in the heart of the ancestral homeland of the Chippewa Ojibwe people. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would restore or rehabilitate two light stations and part of the Long Island light station would be rehabilitated for park staff housing. Additional transportation options would be sought to encourage visitors at Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands and some additional facilities would be developed on these islands. Manitou fish camp would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted. There would be no change in the number of public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Bayfield visitor center would be relocated closer to the water and the Little Bay visitor center would be replaced with a visitor contact station. A new ranger station and accessible beach ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. Alternative 3 would focus on providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities and would implement slight improvements in access to islands. Under Alternative 4, the emphasis would be on providing greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors with no new transportation options developed. Implementation cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $27.7 million and the net increase for the park's operating budget is estimated at $700,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed general management plan would confirm the park's significance and clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved. The plan would provide a framework for decision-making with regard to protecting resources, managing visitor use, and developing facilities in or near the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to be affected by visitors and by existing docks. New development under the preferred alternative would impact vegetation and the natural soundscape in localized areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 91-424. JF - EPA number: 090283, 364 pages, August 7, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 09-42 KW - Beaches KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore KW - Gaylord Nelson Wilderness KW - Lake Superior KW - Wisconsin KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 91-424, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bayfield, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 756826236; 13987-090283_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin is proposed. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula, includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shoreline. Eighty percent of the land area of the 69,372-acre park was designated as wilderness in December 2004. The islands range in size from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island and are spread out over a portion of Lake Superior nearly 290,000 acres in size. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves; spectacular sea caves; some of the largest stands of remnant old-growth forests in the upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. The Apostle Islands region is in the heart of the ancestral homeland of the Chippewa Ojibwe people. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would restore or rehabilitate two light stations and part of the Long Island light station would be rehabilitated for park staff housing. Additional transportation options would be sought to encourage visitors at Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands and some additional facilities would be developed on these islands. Manitou fish camp would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted. There would be no change in the number of public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Bayfield visitor center would be relocated closer to the water and the Little Bay visitor center would be replaced with a visitor contact station. A new ranger station and accessible beach ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. Alternative 3 would focus on providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities and would implement slight improvements in access to islands. Under Alternative 4, the emphasis would be on providing greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors with no new transportation options developed. Implementation cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $27.7 million and the net increase for the park's operating budget is estimated at $700,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed general management plan would confirm the park's significance and clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved. The plan would provide a framework for decision-making with regard to protecting resources, managing visitor use, and developing facilities in or near the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to be affected by visitors and by existing docks. New development under the preferred alternative would impact vegetation and the natural soundscape in localized areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 91-424. JF - EPA number: 090283, 364 pages, August 7, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 09-42 KW - Beaches KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore KW - Gaylord Nelson Wilderness KW - Lake Superior KW - Wisconsin KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 91-424, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bayfield, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APOSTLE ISLANDS NATIONAL LAKESHORE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAYFIELD AND ASHLAND COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36346327; 13987 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new general management plan for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Bayfield and Ashland counties, Wisconsin is proposed. Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, near the tip of the Bayfield Peninsula, includes 21 islands in Lake Superior and a 12-mile-long narrow strip of mainland shoreline. Eighty percent of the land area of the 69,372-acre park was designated as wilderness in December 2004. The islands range in size from 3-acre Gull Island to 10,054-acre Stockton Island and are spread out over a portion of Lake Superior nearly 290,000 acres in size. The park features pristine stretches of sand beaches and coves; spectacular sea caves; some of the largest stands of remnant old-growth forests in the upper Midwest; a diverse population of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish; and the largest collection of national register lighthouses and lighthouse complexes in the national park system. The Apostle Islands region is in the heart of the ancestral homeland of the Chippewa Ojibwe people. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would restore or rehabilitate two light stations and part of the Long Island light station would be rehabilitated for park staff housing. Additional transportation options would be sought to encourage visitors at Sand, Basswood, and Oak islands and some additional facilities would be developed on these islands. Manitou fish camp would be preserved and stabilized, the cultural landscape would be rehabilitated, and the area would be interpreted. There would be no change in the number of public docks, but some docks would be relocated, improved, or expanded. The Bayfield visitor center would be relocated closer to the water and the Little Bay visitor center would be replaced with a visitor contact station. A new ranger station and accessible beach ramp would be developed at Meyers Beach. Alternative 3 would focus on providing primitive, lake-oriented recreation and education opportunities and would implement slight improvements in access to islands. Under Alternative 4, the emphasis would be on providing greater variety of structured recreation opportunities for visitors with no new transportation options developed. Implementation cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $27.7 million and the net increase for the park's operating budget is estimated at $700,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed general management plan would confirm the park's significance and clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved. The plan would provide a framework for decision-making with regard to protecting resources, managing visitor use, and developing facilities in or near the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Sandscapes and shorelines would continue to be affected by visitors and by existing docks. New development under the preferred alternative would impact vegetation and the natural soundscape in localized areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 91-424. JF - EPA number: 090283, 364 pages, August 7, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 09-42 KW - Beaches KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Shores KW - Wilderness Management KW - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore KW - Gaylord Nelson Wilderness KW - Lake Superior KW - Wisconsin KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 91-424, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APOSTLE+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BAYFIELD+AND+ASHLAND+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bayfield, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 756826594; 13983-090279_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The Blackfoot Bridge project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external East Overburden Pile (EOP) or Northwest Overburden Pile (NWOP). Other mine-related facilities would include: 1) ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures ; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond at sediment control pond EP1 to the water management ponds; the water collected in this system would be surface water runoff. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives 1A and 1B would address the issue of the potential for selenium to leach into the groundwater. P4 would construct a layer of impermeable material between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in EOP and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire EOP and overburden in pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of the phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards (bcy) of overburden would be a major, long-term effect on these resources. Direct disturbance of soils would increase erosion and sediment transport rates. The proposed action would result in long-term loss of 99 acres of existing wildlife habitat, direct loss of 9.43 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality in the project area would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Selenium and manganese concentrations in groundwater would exceed applicable standards in areas outside of the project area. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance under the proposed action would total 739 acres and 99 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090279, 556 pages and maps, August 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Diversion Structures KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 756826316; 13983-090279_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The Blackfoot Bridge project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external East Overburden Pile (EOP) or Northwest Overburden Pile (NWOP). Other mine-related facilities would include: 1) ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures ; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond at sediment control pond EP1 to the water management ponds; the water collected in this system would be surface water runoff. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives 1A and 1B would address the issue of the potential for selenium to leach into the groundwater. P4 would construct a layer of impermeable material between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in EOP and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire EOP and overburden in pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of the phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards (bcy) of overburden would be a major, long-term effect on these resources. Direct disturbance of soils would increase erosion and sediment transport rates. The proposed action would result in long-term loss of 99 acres of existing wildlife habitat, direct loss of 9.43 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality in the project area would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Selenium and manganese concentrations in groundwater would exceed applicable standards in areas outside of the project area. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance under the proposed action would total 739 acres and 99 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090279, 556 pages and maps, August 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Diversion Structures KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. AN - 756826218; 13985-090281_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The competitive bid leasing of several tracts of federal coal located adjacent to existing surface coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The coal seams under consideration lie within the mineral rich Powder River Basin. The seams are part of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union, which are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds by mining interests in the eastern Powder River Basin. The South Gillette Area Coal Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts, as applied for by Foundation Coal West, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero Mining Company, encompass 8,161 acres containing 827 million tons of in-place federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, respectively, propose to mine the tracts as maintenance leases for the existing mines if lease sales are held and they acquire the leases. The mining area lies south-southeast of Gillette. The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine North Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. RAG Coal West, Inc. applied for access to the federal coal reserves as a maintenance tract for the Belle Ayr Mine. RAG subsequently sold the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal West, a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. Subsequently, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero Mining Company filed applications to lease the federal coal in adjacent LBA tracts in the area, specifically, the tracts numbered WYW172585, WYW172657, and WYW173360. The tracts were subsequently dubbed the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. This final EIS considers a proposed action and two alternatives for all LBA tracts, and a third alternative for the Maysdorf II tract. The coal would be extracted using conventional open-pit mining techniques. All mined areas and areas used for overburden and waste rock storage would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. [POS]Depending on alternatives considered, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maydorf II LBA tracts would provide these respective ranges of recoverable coal yield: , 150.1 to 235.8 million metric tons (MMT), 57 to 217.5 MMT, 81.5 to 584.8 MMT, and 169.1 and 525.9 MMT. Potential state and federal revenues from the LBA royalties and taxes paid by the applicants could be as much as $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively. Though no jobs would be added to the local mining employment rolls by the mining operation expansions, existing jobs would be maintained for several more years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography and subsurface soils and geology at each site would be altered significantly. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden. Cumulative dewatering caused by the four mining operations would result in continued subsidence. The 18 oil and gas wells located with the boundaries of the LBA tracts, 13 of which are considered to be accessing economically viable resources, would be closed during mining, removing 273,700 barrels of oils and 12 million cubic feet of natural gas out of reach for the duration of the mine life. Hundreds of coalbed natural gas wells located in the area would have to be vented to the atmosphere, irretrievably wasting the vented gas. The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries have been diverted around the existing mines and would be diverted again around the mine extensions. Large tracts of vegetation, including wetland areas, would be destroyed. Federally protected species that could be affected would include the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid and the black-footed ferret. Recreational and grazing uses of the LBA tracts would cease. Low-lying gaseous orange clouds containing nitrogen oxides that can be transported by winds could occasionally form due to overburden blasting prior to coal removal. Air quality and noise impacts would be most likely to affect residents living within one mile of the mining operations and numerous residents are so located. The active mine would be an eyesore. Seven archaeological and historic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by mining. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0398D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090281, Final EIS--576 pages, Appendices--271 pages, August 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-09/029+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Rivers KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+GILLETTE+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING%3A+WYW172585%2C+WYW173360%2C+WYW172657%2C+WYW161248.&rft.title=SOUTH+GILLETTE+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING%3A+WYW172585%2C+WYW173360%2C+WYW172657%2C+WYW161248.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. AN - 756826214; 13985-090281_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The competitive bid leasing of several tracts of federal coal located adjacent to existing surface coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The coal seams under consideration lie within the mineral rich Powder River Basin. The seams are part of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union, which are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds by mining interests in the eastern Powder River Basin. The South Gillette Area Coal Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts, as applied for by Foundation Coal West, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero Mining Company, encompass 8,161 acres containing 827 million tons of in-place federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, respectively, propose to mine the tracts as maintenance leases for the existing mines if lease sales are held and they acquire the leases. The mining area lies south-southeast of Gillette. The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine North Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. RAG Coal West, Inc. applied for access to the federal coal reserves as a maintenance tract for the Belle Ayr Mine. RAG subsequently sold the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal West, a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. Subsequently, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero Mining Company filed applications to lease the federal coal in adjacent LBA tracts in the area, specifically, the tracts numbered WYW172585, WYW172657, and WYW173360. The tracts were subsequently dubbed the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. This final EIS considers a proposed action and two alternatives for all LBA tracts, and a third alternative for the Maysdorf II tract. The coal would be extracted using conventional open-pit mining techniques. All mined areas and areas used for overburden and waste rock storage would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. [POS]Depending on alternatives considered, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maydorf II LBA tracts would provide these respective ranges of recoverable coal yield: , 150.1 to 235.8 million metric tons (MMT), 57 to 217.5 MMT, 81.5 to 584.8 MMT, and 169.1 and 525.9 MMT. Potential state and federal revenues from the LBA royalties and taxes paid by the applicants could be as much as $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively. Though no jobs would be added to the local mining employment rolls by the mining operation expansions, existing jobs would be maintained for several more years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography and subsurface soils and geology at each site would be altered significantly. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden. Cumulative dewatering caused by the four mining operations would result in continued subsidence. The 18 oil and gas wells located with the boundaries of the LBA tracts, 13 of which are considered to be accessing economically viable resources, would be closed during mining, removing 273,700 barrels of oils and 12 million cubic feet of natural gas out of reach for the duration of the mine life. Hundreds of coalbed natural gas wells located in the area would have to be vented to the atmosphere, irretrievably wasting the vented gas. The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries have been diverted around the existing mines and would be diverted again around the mine extensions. Large tracts of vegetation, including wetland areas, would be destroyed. Federally protected species that could be affected would include the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid and the black-footed ferret. Recreational and grazing uses of the LBA tracts would cease. Low-lying gaseous orange clouds containing nitrogen oxides that can be transported by winds could occasionally form due to overburden blasting prior to coal removal. Air quality and noise impacts would be most likely to affect residents living within one mile of the mining operations and numerous residents are so located. The active mine would be an eyesore. Seven archaeological and historic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by mining. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0398D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090281, Final EIS--576 pages, Appendices--271 pages, August 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-09/029+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Rivers KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+GILLETTE+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING%3A+WYW172585%2C+WYW173360%2C+WYW172657%2C+WYW161248.&rft.title=SOUTH+GILLETTE+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING%3A+WYW172585%2C+WYW173360%2C+WYW172657%2C+WYW161248.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248. AN - 756826204; 13985-090281_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The competitive bid leasing of several tracts of federal coal located adjacent to existing surface coal mines in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. The coal seams under consideration lie within the mineral rich Powder River Basin. The seams are part of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union, which are referred to as the Anderson and Canyon, Wyodak Anderson, and Wyodak coal beds by mining interests in the eastern Powder River Basin. The South Gillette Area Coal Lease by Application (LBA) Tracts, as applied for by Foundation Coal West, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero Mining Company, encompass 8,161 acres containing 827 million tons of in-place federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo mines, respectively, propose to mine the tracts as maintenance leases for the existing mines if lease sales are held and they acquire the leases. The mining area lies south-southeast of Gillette. The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine North Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. RAG Coal West, Inc. applied for access to the federal coal reserves as a maintenance tract for the Belle Ayr Mine. RAG subsequently sold the Belle Ayr Mine to Foundation Coal West, a directly held subsidiary of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. Subsequently, Ark Land Company, Caballo Coal Company, and Cordero Mining Company filed applications to lease the federal coal in adjacent LBA tracts in the area, specifically, the tracts numbered WYW172585, WYW172657, and WYW173360. The tracts were subsequently dubbed the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maysdorf II LBA tracts. This final EIS considers a proposed action and two alternatives for all LBA tracts, and a third alternative for the Maysdorf II tract. The coal would be extracted using conventional open-pit mining techniques. All mined areas and areas used for overburden and waste rock storage would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. [POS]Depending on alternatives considered, the Belle Ayr North, West Coal Creek, Caballo West, and Maydorf II LBA tracts would provide these respective ranges of recoverable coal yield: , 150.1 to 235.8 million metric tons (MMT), 57 to 217.5 MMT, 81.5 to 584.8 MMT, and 169.1 and 525.9 MMT. Potential state and federal revenues from the LBA royalties and taxes paid by the applicants could be as much as $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively. Though no jobs would be added to the local mining employment rolls by the mining operation expansions, existing jobs would be maintained for several more years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The existing topography and subsurface soils and geology at each site would be altered significantly. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden. Cumulative dewatering caused by the four mining operations would result in continued subsidence. The 18 oil and gas wells located with the boundaries of the LBA tracts, 13 of which are considered to be accessing economically viable resources, would be closed during mining, removing 273,700 barrels of oils and 12 million cubic feet of natural gas out of reach for the duration of the mine life. Hundreds of coalbed natural gas wells located in the area would have to be vented to the atmosphere, irretrievably wasting the vented gas. The Belle Fourche River and its tributaries have been diverted around the existing mines and would be diverted again around the mine extensions. Large tracts of vegetation, including wetland areas, would be destroyed. Federally protected species that could be affected would include the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid and the black-footed ferret. Recreational and grazing uses of the LBA tracts would cease. Low-lying gaseous orange clouds containing nitrogen oxides that can be transported by winds could occasionally form due to overburden blasting prior to coal removal. Air quality and noise impacts would be most likely to affect residents living within one mile of the mining operations and numerous residents are so located. The active mine would be an eyesore. Seven archaeological and historic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by mining. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0398D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090281, Final EIS--576 pages, Appendices--271 pages, August 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-09/029+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Rivers KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+GILLETTE+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING%3A+WYW172585%2C+WYW173360%2C+WYW172657%2C+WYW161248.&rft.title=SOUTH+GILLETTE+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING%3A+WYW172585%2C+WYW173360%2C+WYW172657%2C+WYW161248.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACKFOOT BRIDGE MINE, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36344520; 13983 AB - PURPOSE: The mining of phosphate ore at the Blackfoot Bridge Mine, located 10 miles northeast of Soda Springs in Caribou County, Idaho is proposed. P4 Production, LLC (P4), a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto Company, Inc., submitted an initial mine and reclamation plan in November 2005 and a revised plan in October 2008. The revised plan proposes a new open pit phosphate mining operation on federal mineral leases that would include external overburden piles, a haul road, and a water management plan. Under the proposed action, phosphate ore would be mined and hauled eight miles to P4's Soda Springs elemental phosphorous plant for processing. No processing other than typical crushing and screening operations would occur at the mine site and all chemical processing activities would occur at the Soda Springs plant. The Blackfoot Bridge Mine ore reserve would be developed using an open pit mining method on a series of bench cuts, using a combination of in-pit retreating ramps and backfill ramps. The primary equipment for ore and overburden mining would be a combination of trucks, track-mounted excavators, bulldozers, and front-end loaders. A track-hoe excavator would also be used to maximize recovery of ore in the bottom of the pit. The Blackfoot Bridge project would be mined in a phased approach with mining and reclamation activities continuing for 17 years. Ore would be recovered from three mine pits beginning in Mid Pit, followed by the North Pit and South Pit. All overburden would either be backfilled into mined-out portions of the mine pits or placed in the external East Overburden Pile (EOP) or Northwest Overburden Pile (NWOP). Other mine-related facilities would include: 1) ore stockpile and truck loading area; 2) ore truck turnaround loop and equipment yard; 3) two water management ponds and other water control structures ; 4) topsoil stockpiles; 5) sediment control dams; 6) roads; and 7) sediment control structures. A water diversion ditch would be constructed from the unnamed tributary to Fish Pond at sediment control pond EP1 to the water management ponds; the water collected in this system would be surface water runoff. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives 1A and 1B would address the issue of the potential for selenium to leach into the groundwater. P4 would construct a layer of impermeable material between the segregated Meade Peak overburden and the applied growth medium to eliminate potential effects of water infiltrating into the backfilled pits and external overburden piles. Alternative 1A would use a geosynthetic clay laminate layer (GCLL) cover system over core materials in EOP and overburden pits. Alternative 1B would use a GCLL over the entire EOP and overburden in pits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would ensure economically viable development of the phosphate resources and allow the lessee to exercise its right to develop those resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Removal of 91 million bank cubic yards (bcy) of overburden would be a major, long-term effect on these resources. Direct disturbance of soils would increase erosion and sediment transport rates. The proposed action would result in long-term loss of 99 acres of existing wildlife habitat, direct loss of 9.43 acres of wetlands. Mining would result in release of selenium and trace metals and groundwater quality in the project area would be potentially impacted by seepage from the proposed overburden piles and backfilled pits. Selenium and manganese concentrations in groundwater would exceed applicable standards in areas outside of the project area. Construction of facilities would have effects on topography and stability of the landscape. Surface disturbance under the proposed action would total 739 acres and 99 acres not reclaimed would represent long-term modification. Annual fugitive dust emissions from mining operations would be 138 tons per year. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090279, 556 pages and maps, August 6, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-320-2006-EIS-1553 KW - Air Quality KW - Diversion Structures KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Phosphates KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Idaho KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=BLACKFOOT+BRIDGE+MINE%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE RIVERS STONE QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - THREE RIVERS STONE QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 756826272; 13972-090268_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the plan of operations for the Three Rivers Stone Quarry Expansion in Custer County, Idaho is proposed by the L&W Stone Company. Even though L&W Stone's quarry production has increased over the years, it has been unable to keep up with demand for its flagstone products. The quarry, which is mined for flagstone, lies roughly five miles east of the town of Clayton, just north of the confluence of the East Fork Salmon and Salmon rivers, and entirely within lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management's Challis Field Office. Mining at the quarry has occurred since the 1970s. Mining is currently taking place under an interim mining plan. In 2005, as the result of a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court ordered that an EIS be completed for the amended plan of operations and alternatives submitted by L&W Stone in 2002 and analyzed in 2004 in an Environmental Assessment. The court decision allowed L&W Stone to continue to operate under an interim mining plan until the EIS process is completed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to protection of the East Fork Salmon River Bench Area of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Area; maintaining the values of the Salmon and East Fork Salmon rivers; improving the socioeconomic status of the Challis area; protecting visual qualities in the area; protecting fish and wildlife, including federally protected species; protecting water quality; minimizing noise impacts to residents and wildlife from the use of explosives; reducing and mitigating dust generated by mining activities; and maintaining and protecting tribal treaty rights and interests. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the preferred amendment alternative (Alternative D), the quarry would be expanded. This would require the upgrading of roads, expansion of existing pits and possible creation of new pits, exploration for additional flagstone, drilling a well under an approved water right, and reclaiming disturbed areas after mining. Mining would continue in pits 1 and 2, but mining activities would also be expanded into two new prospective pits that contain unproven reserves of flagstone. Mining operations would continue for up to 40 years. One of the new pits would be located on a knob, with the flagstone outcrop located on the upper western flank of the ridge extending to the top of the ridge. The other new pit would be located on a rounded knob south of the first new pit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the new mining plan would allow L&W Stone Company to mine sufficient flagstone to meet market demand, which has increased substantially since 2000 and is expected to continue to increase. The quarry would provide 66 year-round and 46 seasonal jobs and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future mining would result in up to 83 acres of new surface disturbance, and another 18 acres would be disturbed for exploration purposes. Overall surface disturbance, including existing and planned developments, would amount to 183 acres. Up to 300,000 tons of waste rock and flagstone would be removed per year. Blasting to expose flagstone would occur up to 32 times per month. From 1,500 to 2,000 truckloads of flagstone would leave the site each year. Operations would consume 95,000 gallons of water per day for dust suppression. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0037D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090268, 402 pages, July 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-330-2006-EIS-1464 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mining KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Challis Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+RIVERS+STONE+QUARRY+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=THREE+RIVERS+STONE+QUARRY+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Challis, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE RIVERS STONE QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - THREE RIVERS STONE QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 756826233; 13972-090268_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the plan of operations for the Three Rivers Stone Quarry Expansion in Custer County, Idaho is proposed by the L&W Stone Company. Even though L&W Stone's quarry production has increased over the years, it has been unable to keep up with demand for its flagstone products. The quarry, which is mined for flagstone, lies roughly five miles east of the town of Clayton, just north of the confluence of the East Fork Salmon and Salmon rivers, and entirely within lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management's Challis Field Office. Mining at the quarry has occurred since the 1970s. Mining is currently taking place under an interim mining plan. In 2005, as the result of a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court ordered that an EIS be completed for the amended plan of operations and alternatives submitted by L&W Stone in 2002 and analyzed in 2004 in an Environmental Assessment. The court decision allowed L&W Stone to continue to operate under an interim mining plan until the EIS process is completed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to protection of the East Fork Salmon River Bench Area of Critical Environmental Concern/Research Natural Area; maintaining the values of the Salmon and East Fork Salmon rivers; improving the socioeconomic status of the Challis area; protecting visual qualities in the area; protecting fish and wildlife, including federally protected species; protecting water quality; minimizing noise impacts to residents and wildlife from the use of explosives; reducing and mitigating dust generated by mining activities; and maintaining and protecting tribal treaty rights and interests. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the preferred amendment alternative (Alternative D), the quarry would be expanded. This would require the upgrading of roads, expansion of existing pits and possible creation of new pits, exploration for additional flagstone, drilling a well under an approved water right, and reclaiming disturbed areas after mining. Mining would continue in pits 1 and 2, but mining activities would also be expanded into two new prospective pits that contain unproven reserves of flagstone. Mining operations would continue for up to 40 years. One of the new pits would be located on a knob, with the flagstone outcrop located on the upper western flank of the ridge extending to the top of the ridge. The other new pit would be located on a rounded knob south of the first new pit. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the new mining plan would allow L&W Stone Company to mine sufficient flagstone to meet market demand, which has increased substantially since 2000 and is expected to continue to increase. The quarry would provide 66 year-round and 46 seasonal jobs and otherwise contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future mining would result in up to 83 acres of new surface disturbance, and another 18 acres would be disturbed for exploration purposes. Overall surface disturbance, including existing and planned developments, would amount to 183 acres. Up to 300,000 tons of waste rock and flagstone would be removed per year. Blasting to expose flagstone would occur up to 32 times per month. From 1,500 to 2,000 truckloads of flagstone would leave the site each year. Operations would consume 95,000 gallons of water per day for dust suppression. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0037D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090268, 402 pages, July 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-ID-330-2006-EIS-1464 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mining KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Idaho KW - Challis Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+RIVERS+STONE+QUARRY+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=THREE+RIVERS+STONE+QUARRY+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Challis, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825799; 13970-090266_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses an area of 128,292 acres and delivers water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. MID proposes to implement the WSEP, by which MID would bank a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the aquifer underlying the Madera Ranch property. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. In order to implement the WSEP, Reclamation approval to bank a portion of MID's CVP water outside of their service area and to alter a federal facility, the 24.2 Canal, is needed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and socioeconomic concerns related to farmers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. The proposed action would be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve supplemental recharge facilities and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve a total banking capacity of 250,000 acre-feet (af) of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issuance of a permit for the alteration of facilities. MID would be able to recharge and recover a maximum of 55,000 af annually. Alternative C would complete the water bank in two phases and would replace natural swale recharge solely with recharge basins. Under Alternative D, MID would enter into an agreement with Gravelly Ford Water District to improve the Gravelly Ford (GF) Canal to allow water to be conveyed from the San Joaquin River through the GF Canal to Madera Ranch for banking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would meet a portion of MID's current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, water supply, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would have potential for mortality of California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. The project would permanently remove vernal pools and alkalai rain pools during construction. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090266, 462 pages and maps, July 28, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-40 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344701; 13970 AB - PURPOSE: The Madera Irrigation District (MID) Water Supply Enhancement Project (WSEP), west of the city of Madera, in Madera County, California is proposed. MID encompasses an area of 128,292 acres and delivers water to its service area as part of the Hidden Unit (Fresno River) and Friant Division (San Joaquin River) long-term water supply contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation. MID proposes to implement the WSEP, by which MID would bank a portion of their Central Valley Project (CVP) water from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers and other non-CVP water in the aquifer underlying the Madera Ranch property. Water would be banked in the aquifer and 10 percent of the water would be left behind to reduce overdraft. In order to implement the WSEP, Reclamation approval to bank a portion of MID's CVP water outside of their service area and to alter a federal facility, the 24.2 Canal, is needed. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to potential impacts on water quality, water supply, water rights issues, biological resources, and socioeconomic concerns related to farmers. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would involve construction and operation of facilities to convey and bank surface water beneath Madera Ranch using natural swales and later to recover up to 90 percent of the banked water for beneficial use. The proposed action would be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would involve only recharge-related facilities. Phase 2 would involve supplemental recharge facilities and facilities for recovery of banked water. Reclamation would approve a total banking capacity of 250,000 acre-feet (af) of MID CVP water outside the MID service area and issuance of a permit for the alteration of facilities. MID would be able to recharge and recover a maximum of 55,000 af annually. Alternative C would complete the water bank in two phases and would replace natural swale recharge solely with recharge basins. Under Alternative D, MID would enter into an agreement with Gravelly Ford Water District to improve the Gravelly Ford (GF) Canal to allow water to be conveyed from the San Joaquin River through the GF Canal to Madera Ranch for banking. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would meet a portion of MID's current and future water storage needs, enhance water supply reliability and flexibility, reduce aquifer overdraft, and encourage conjunctive use in the region as a means toward self-sufficiency. The project would result in beneficial effects on groundwater recharge rates, subsidence, water supply, and socioeconomics because of the increased reliability of water in dry years and the gradual groundwater recharge proposed as part of the WSEP. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would have potential for mortality of California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, San Joaquin kit fox, and Fresno kangaroo rat. The project would permanently remove vernal pools and alkalai rain pools during construction. Residences would be exposed to noise from grading, construction, and well drilling operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 11-111, and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090266, 462 pages and maps, July 28, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-40 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farm Management KW - Irrigation KW - Noise KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Farmland Protection Policy Act, Compliance KW - Public Law 11-111, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MADERA+IRRIGATION+DISTRICT+WATER+SUPPLY+ENHANCEMENT+PROJECT%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873126441; 13963-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The application of design criteria to the authorization and implementation of site specific reserved and outstanding private oil and gas development (OGD) proposals in the Allegheny National Forest in Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The 2007 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was administratively appealed resulting in the review of the application of standards and guidelines to private OGD. To determine whether or not the standards and guidelines are appropriate, clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Forest Service, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and private mineral owners in regard to the protection of surface resources during private development is necessary. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, visual resources, and reclamation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would implement the management direction contained in the Forest Plan with all standards and guidelines applicable to private OGD. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include only those Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to private OGD. Standards and guidelines would be clarified through rewording and consolidation to be more specific to private OGD and those pertaining to already established state and federal requirements would be removed. Standards and guidelines related to use of pit run material for road surfacing and well pad construction would be removed while those for all other activities would remain unchanged from the Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines would be added in response to issues regarding visual resources and reclamation. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 but would modify or delete standards and guidelines in response to issues regarding water quality and reclamation and would remove most standards regarding visual resources. Standards and guidelines would be added for potential development of the Marcellus shale. Implementation of Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3, and 4 would result in an amendment to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for private OGD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The incorporation of design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the Forest Plan to be employed in the authorization and implementation of site-specific reserved and outstanding private OGD would provide reasonable and necessary access for the development of mineral assets while mitigating effects to national Forest System resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas resources development and use would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, the disturbance of soils and sedimentation of receiving surface flows in the short-term, and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the affected areas. Reduced species viability due to long term habitat disturbance and increased human activity would be more extensive under Alternatives 1 and 4. LEGAL MANDATES: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0379D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090259, Draft Supplemental EIS--310 pages, July 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Allegheny National Forest KW - Pennsylvania KW - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873125588; 13963-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The application of design criteria to the authorization and implementation of site specific reserved and outstanding private oil and gas development (OGD) proposals in the Allegheny National Forest in Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The 2007 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was administratively appealed resulting in the review of the application of standards and guidelines to private OGD. To determine whether or not the standards and guidelines are appropriate, clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Forest Service, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and private mineral owners in regard to the protection of surface resources during private development is necessary. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, visual resources, and reclamation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would implement the management direction contained in the Forest Plan with all standards and guidelines applicable to private OGD. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include only those Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to private OGD. Standards and guidelines would be clarified through rewording and consolidation to be more specific to private OGD and those pertaining to already established state and federal requirements would be removed. Standards and guidelines related to use of pit run material for road surfacing and well pad construction would be removed while those for all other activities would remain unchanged from the Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines would be added in response to issues regarding visual resources and reclamation. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 but would modify or delete standards and guidelines in response to issues regarding water quality and reclamation and would remove most standards regarding visual resources. Standards and guidelines would be added for potential development of the Marcellus shale. Implementation of Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3, and 4 would result in an amendment to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for private OGD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The incorporation of design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the Forest Plan to be employed in the authorization and implementation of site-specific reserved and outstanding private OGD would provide reasonable and necessary access for the development of mineral assets while mitigating effects to national Forest System resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas resources development and use would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, the disturbance of soils and sedimentation of receiving surface flows in the short-term, and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the affected areas. Reduced species viability due to long term habitat disturbance and increased human activity would be more extensive under Alternatives 1 and 4. LEGAL MANDATES: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0379D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090259, Draft Supplemental EIS--310 pages, July 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Allegheny National Forest KW - Pennsylvania KW - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873125583; 13963-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The application of design criteria to the authorization and implementation of site specific reserved and outstanding private oil and gas development (OGD) proposals in the Allegheny National Forest in Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The 2007 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was administratively appealed resulting in the review of the application of standards and guidelines to private OGD. To determine whether or not the standards and guidelines are appropriate, clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Forest Service, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and private mineral owners in regard to the protection of surface resources during private development is necessary. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, visual resources, and reclamation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would implement the management direction contained in the Forest Plan with all standards and guidelines applicable to private OGD. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include only those Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to private OGD. Standards and guidelines would be clarified through rewording and consolidation to be more specific to private OGD and those pertaining to already established state and federal requirements would be removed. Standards and guidelines related to use of pit run material for road surfacing and well pad construction would be removed while those for all other activities would remain unchanged from the Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines would be added in response to issues regarding visual resources and reclamation. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 but would modify or delete standards and guidelines in response to issues regarding water quality and reclamation and would remove most standards regarding visual resources. Standards and guidelines would be added for potential development of the Marcellus shale. Implementation of Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3, and 4 would result in an amendment to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for private OGD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The incorporation of design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the Forest Plan to be employed in the authorization and implementation of site-specific reserved and outstanding private OGD would provide reasonable and necessary access for the development of mineral assets while mitigating effects to national Forest System resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas resources development and use would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, the disturbance of soils and sedimentation of receiving surface flows in the short-term, and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the affected areas. Reduced species viability due to long term habitat disturbance and increased human activity would be more extensive under Alternatives 1 and 4. LEGAL MANDATES: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0379D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090259, Draft Supplemental EIS--310 pages, July 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Allegheny National Forest KW - Pennsylvania KW - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 4] T2 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873125579; 13963-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The application of design criteria to the authorization and implementation of site specific reserved and outstanding private oil and gas development (OGD) proposals in the Allegheny National Forest in Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The 2007 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was administratively appealed resulting in the review of the application of standards and guidelines to private OGD. To determine whether or not the standards and guidelines are appropriate, clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Forest Service, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and private mineral owners in regard to the protection of surface resources during private development is necessary. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, visual resources, and reclamation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would implement the management direction contained in the Forest Plan with all standards and guidelines applicable to private OGD. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include only those Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to private OGD. Standards and guidelines would be clarified through rewording and consolidation to be more specific to private OGD and those pertaining to already established state and federal requirements would be removed. Standards and guidelines related to use of pit run material for road surfacing and well pad construction would be removed while those for all other activities would remain unchanged from the Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines would be added in response to issues regarding visual resources and reclamation. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 but would modify or delete standards and guidelines in response to issues regarding water quality and reclamation and would remove most standards regarding visual resources. Standards and guidelines would be added for potential development of the Marcellus shale. Implementation of Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3, and 4 would result in an amendment to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for private OGD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The incorporation of design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the Forest Plan to be employed in the authorization and implementation of site-specific reserved and outstanding private OGD would provide reasonable and necessary access for the development of mineral assets while mitigating effects to national Forest System resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas resources development and use would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, the disturbance of soils and sedimentation of receiving surface flows in the short-term, and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the affected areas. Reduced species viability due to long term habitat disturbance and increased human activity would be more extensive under Alternatives 1 and 4. LEGAL MANDATES: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0379D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090259, Draft Supplemental EIS--310 pages, July 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Allegheny National Forest KW - Pennsylvania KW - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST, ELK, FOREST, MCKEAN, AND WARREN COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16384397; 13963 AB - PURPOSE: The application of design criteria to the authorization and implementation of site specific reserved and outstanding private oil and gas development (OGD) proposals in the Allegheny National Forest in Elk, Forest, McKean, and Warren counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The 2007 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was administratively appealed resulting in the review of the application of standards and guidelines to private OGD. To determine whether or not the standards and guidelines are appropriate, clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Forest Service, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and private mineral owners in regard to the protection of surface resources during private development is necessary. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, visual resources, and reclamation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would implement the management direction contained in the Forest Plan with all standards and guidelines applicable to private OGD. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would include only those Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to private OGD. Standards and guidelines would be clarified through rewording and consolidation to be more specific to private OGD and those pertaining to already established state and federal requirements would be removed. Standards and guidelines related to use of pit run material for road surfacing and well pad construction would be removed while those for all other activities would remain unchanged from the Forest Plan. Standards and guidelines would be added in response to issues regarding visual resources and reclamation. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 but would modify or delete standards and guidelines in response to issues regarding water quality and reclamation and would remove most standards regarding visual resources. Standards and guidelines would be added for potential development of the Marcellus shale. Implementation of Alternatives 1 (No Action), 3, and 4 would result in an amendment to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for private OGD. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The incorporation of design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the Forest Plan to be employed in the authorization and implementation of site-specific reserved and outstanding private OGD would provide reasonable and necessary access for the development of mineral assets while mitigating effects to national Forest System resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas resources development and use would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, the disturbance of soils and sedimentation of receiving surface flows in the short-term, and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the affected areas. Reduced species viability due to long term habitat disturbance and increased human activity would be more extensive under Alternatives 1 and 4. LEGAL MANDATES: Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0379D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090259, Draft Supplemental EIS--310 pages, July 24, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Allegheny National Forest KW - Pennsylvania KW - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALLEGHENY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ELK%2C+FOREST%2C+MCKEAN%2C+AND+WARREN+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 18 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126173; 13959-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 17 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126164; 13959-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 16 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126157; 13959-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 15 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126149; 13959-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 14 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126144; 13959-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 13 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126133; 13959-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 8 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126123; 13959-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 7 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126110; 13959-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 6 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126105; 13959-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 5 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126087; 13959-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 12 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125565; 13959-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 11 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125560; 13959-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 10 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125558; 13959-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 9 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125555; 13959-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 4 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125553; 13959-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 3 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125549; 13959-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125547; 13959-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125536; 13959-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 24 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125510; 13959-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 23 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125506; 13959-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 22 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125503; 13959-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 21 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125497; 13959-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 20 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125495; 13959-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 19 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125491; 13959-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 30 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125233; 13959-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 29 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125230; 13959-5_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 28 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125225; 13959-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 27 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125220; 13959-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 26 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125215; 13959-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 25 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125209; 13959-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 31 of 31] T2 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873125151; 13959-5_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826581; 13960-090256_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Round Mountain Gold Corporation proposes to construct and operate the Round Mountain Expansion Project which would include the expansion of its existing open-pit gold mining and processing operations in the Round Mountain area and development of new facilities in the Gold Hill area. The proposed project is located in south-central Nevada 55 miles north of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada. Proposed activities would include expansion of the existing Round Mountain Project Boundary, and expansion of the Round Mountain open pit, North Waste Rock Dump, mill facility, tailings impoundment, growth media and ore stockpiles, storm water control and diversion structures, dewatering operations for the open pit, west and south dedicated leach pads, reusable pad, and process facilities. New facilities would include the development of the North Dedicated Leach Pad, lime silos, and surface installations and portal entry for an underground mine located at the bottom of the Round Mountain Pit. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves would be conducted within the Round Mountain Area. In the Gold Hill Area, new mining facilities would be developed including an open pit, two new waste rock dumps, new heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe precipitation plant, retort and refinery, haul roads and secondary roads, production water wells, rapid infiltration basins, and ancillary facilities. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves also would be conducted within the Gold Hill Area. The proposed project would include construction of a 1.1-mile transportation and utility corridor between the Round Mountain and Gold Hill areas, which would include a haul road, electric transmission line, water pipeline, and communication lines. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater and surface water impacts from pit dewatering, water quality impacts from acid-generating waste rock, pit lake formation, mercury content of ore, backfilling of pits with waste rock, closure of heap pads, big game species, bat species and habitat, noise, and relocation of a transmission line. In addition to the proposed action, two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow for continued profitable recovery of gold and silver reserves and resources on federal mining claims that would meet the prevailing market demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would require new surface disturbance of 4,698 acres, including 4,581 acres of public land and 117 acres of private land. Direct impacts would include the generation and permanent disposal of 992 million tons (Mt) of waste rock and 998 Mt of processed ore in the Round Mountain Area and up to 144 Mt of waste rock and 48 Mt of processed ore in the Gold Hill Area. The East Smoky Valley Fault Zone in the western part of the proposed project area could generate earthquake-induced ground motion. Groundwater drawdown could affect water rights west of the proposed project area. Air quality would be affected by both construction and operation of mining facilities. In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed expansion would cause fugitive hydrogen cyanide emissions from new leach facilities. Indirect noise effects on the Alta Toquima Wilderness would occur, but primarily in the western reaches which are infrequently used. Long-term reduction in wildlife habitat would be 4,346 acres and permanent reduction would be 344 acres. New project-related fenced area would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing by 8,116 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Federal Land Policy, Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090256, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II--310 pages, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-38 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Earthquakes KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Refineries KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826569; 13960-090256_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Round Mountain Gold Corporation proposes to construct and operate the Round Mountain Expansion Project which would include the expansion of its existing open-pit gold mining and processing operations in the Round Mountain area and development of new facilities in the Gold Hill area. The proposed project is located in south-central Nevada 55 miles north of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada. Proposed activities would include expansion of the existing Round Mountain Project Boundary, and expansion of the Round Mountain open pit, North Waste Rock Dump, mill facility, tailings impoundment, growth media and ore stockpiles, storm water control and diversion structures, dewatering operations for the open pit, west and south dedicated leach pads, reusable pad, and process facilities. New facilities would include the development of the North Dedicated Leach Pad, lime silos, and surface installations and portal entry for an underground mine located at the bottom of the Round Mountain Pit. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves would be conducted within the Round Mountain Area. In the Gold Hill Area, new mining facilities would be developed including an open pit, two new waste rock dumps, new heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe precipitation plant, retort and refinery, haul roads and secondary roads, production water wells, rapid infiltration basins, and ancillary facilities. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves also would be conducted within the Gold Hill Area. The proposed project would include construction of a 1.1-mile transportation and utility corridor between the Round Mountain and Gold Hill areas, which would include a haul road, electric transmission line, water pipeline, and communication lines. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater and surface water impacts from pit dewatering, water quality impacts from acid-generating waste rock, pit lake formation, mercury content of ore, backfilling of pits with waste rock, closure of heap pads, big game species, bat species and habitat, noise, and relocation of a transmission line. In addition to the proposed action, two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow for continued profitable recovery of gold and silver reserves and resources on federal mining claims that would meet the prevailing market demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would require new surface disturbance of 4,698 acres, including 4,581 acres of public land and 117 acres of private land. Direct impacts would include the generation and permanent disposal of 992 million tons (Mt) of waste rock and 998 Mt of processed ore in the Round Mountain Area and up to 144 Mt of waste rock and 48 Mt of processed ore in the Gold Hill Area. The East Smoky Valley Fault Zone in the western part of the proposed project area could generate earthquake-induced ground motion. Groundwater drawdown could affect water rights west of the proposed project area. Air quality would be affected by both construction and operation of mining facilities. In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed expansion would cause fugitive hydrogen cyanide emissions from new leach facilities. Indirect noise effects on the Alta Toquima Wilderness would occur, but primarily in the western reaches which are infrequently used. Long-term reduction in wildlife habitat would be 4,346 acres and permanent reduction would be 344 acres. New project-related fenced area would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing by 8,116 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Federal Land Policy, Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090256, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II--310 pages, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-38 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Earthquakes KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Refineries KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826558; 13960-090256_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Round Mountain Gold Corporation proposes to construct and operate the Round Mountain Expansion Project which would include the expansion of its existing open-pit gold mining and processing operations in the Round Mountain area and development of new facilities in the Gold Hill area. The proposed project is located in south-central Nevada 55 miles north of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada. Proposed activities would include expansion of the existing Round Mountain Project Boundary, and expansion of the Round Mountain open pit, North Waste Rock Dump, mill facility, tailings impoundment, growth media and ore stockpiles, storm water control and diversion structures, dewatering operations for the open pit, west and south dedicated leach pads, reusable pad, and process facilities. New facilities would include the development of the North Dedicated Leach Pad, lime silos, and surface installations and portal entry for an underground mine located at the bottom of the Round Mountain Pit. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves would be conducted within the Round Mountain Area. In the Gold Hill Area, new mining facilities would be developed including an open pit, two new waste rock dumps, new heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe precipitation plant, retort and refinery, haul roads and secondary roads, production water wells, rapid infiltration basins, and ancillary facilities. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves also would be conducted within the Gold Hill Area. The proposed project would include construction of a 1.1-mile transportation and utility corridor between the Round Mountain and Gold Hill areas, which would include a haul road, electric transmission line, water pipeline, and communication lines. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater and surface water impacts from pit dewatering, water quality impacts from acid-generating waste rock, pit lake formation, mercury content of ore, backfilling of pits with waste rock, closure of heap pads, big game species, bat species and habitat, noise, and relocation of a transmission line. In addition to the proposed action, two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow for continued profitable recovery of gold and silver reserves and resources on federal mining claims that would meet the prevailing market demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would require new surface disturbance of 4,698 acres, including 4,581 acres of public land and 117 acres of private land. Direct impacts would include the generation and permanent disposal of 992 million tons (Mt) of waste rock and 998 Mt of processed ore in the Round Mountain Area and up to 144 Mt of waste rock and 48 Mt of processed ore in the Gold Hill Area. The East Smoky Valley Fault Zone in the western part of the proposed project area could generate earthquake-induced ground motion. Groundwater drawdown could affect water rights west of the proposed project area. Air quality would be affected by both construction and operation of mining facilities. In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed expansion would cause fugitive hydrogen cyanide emissions from new leach facilities. Indirect noise effects on the Alta Toquima Wilderness would occur, but primarily in the western reaches which are infrequently used. Long-term reduction in wildlife habitat would be 4,346 acres and permanent reduction would be 344 acres. New project-related fenced area would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing by 8,116 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Federal Land Policy, Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090256, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II--310 pages, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-38 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Earthquakes KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Refineries KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756826281; 13960-090256_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Round Mountain Gold Corporation proposes to construct and operate the Round Mountain Expansion Project which would include the expansion of its existing open-pit gold mining and processing operations in the Round Mountain area and development of new facilities in the Gold Hill area. The proposed project is located in south-central Nevada 55 miles north of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada. Proposed activities would include expansion of the existing Round Mountain Project Boundary, and expansion of the Round Mountain open pit, North Waste Rock Dump, mill facility, tailings impoundment, growth media and ore stockpiles, storm water control and diversion structures, dewatering operations for the open pit, west and south dedicated leach pads, reusable pad, and process facilities. New facilities would include the development of the North Dedicated Leach Pad, lime silos, and surface installations and portal entry for an underground mine located at the bottom of the Round Mountain Pit. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves would be conducted within the Round Mountain Area. In the Gold Hill Area, new mining facilities would be developed including an open pit, two new waste rock dumps, new heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe precipitation plant, retort and refinery, haul roads and secondary roads, production water wells, rapid infiltration basins, and ancillary facilities. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves also would be conducted within the Gold Hill Area. The proposed project would include construction of a 1.1-mile transportation and utility corridor between the Round Mountain and Gold Hill areas, which would include a haul road, electric transmission line, water pipeline, and communication lines. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater and surface water impacts from pit dewatering, water quality impacts from acid-generating waste rock, pit lake formation, mercury content of ore, backfilling of pits with waste rock, closure of heap pads, big game species, bat species and habitat, noise, and relocation of a transmission line. In addition to the proposed action, two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow for continued profitable recovery of gold and silver reserves and resources on federal mining claims that would meet the prevailing market demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would require new surface disturbance of 4,698 acres, including 4,581 acres of public land and 117 acres of private land. Direct impacts would include the generation and permanent disposal of 992 million tons (Mt) of waste rock and 998 Mt of processed ore in the Round Mountain Area and up to 144 Mt of waste rock and 48 Mt of processed ore in the Gold Hill Area. The East Smoky Valley Fault Zone in the western part of the proposed project area could generate earthquake-induced ground motion. Groundwater drawdown could affect water rights west of the proposed project area. Air quality would be affected by both construction and operation of mining facilities. In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed expansion would cause fugitive hydrogen cyanide emissions from new leach facilities. Indirect noise effects on the Alta Toquima Wilderness would occur, but primarily in the western reaches which are infrequently used. Long-term reduction in wildlife habitat would be 4,346 acres and permanent reduction would be 344 acres. New project-related fenced area would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing by 8,116 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Federal Land Policy, Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090256, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II--310 pages, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-38 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Earthquakes KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Refineries KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEWEY CONVEYOR PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DEWEY CONVEYOR PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 756825932; 13961-090257_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of an application by GCC Dakotah, Inc. for construction of a 6.6-mile conveyor system as a means to transport limestone from a future quarry location to a rail load-out facility near Dewey, Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. If the application is approved, a special permit and a right-of-way (ROW) would be required for the conveyor to cross federal lands. GCC Dakotah has located a limestone deposit several miles north of Dewey where the outcrop of the Minnekahta Limestone lies at, or close enough to, the surface to make mining economically feasible. The nearby town of Dewey is located along an existing rail transportation corridor. Most of the proposed construction corridor for the conveyor would be on land privately owned by GCC Dakotah, but segments would need to cross 1.0 miles of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 1.4 miles of land within the Black Hills National Forest. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to visual resources, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B) are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would include an elevated, enclosed conveyor belt, a one-lane service road and access points. On level ground, the elevated conveyor would be about 16-feet high, and would provide nine feet of vertical clearance beneath the structure. Support structures would be required at intervals of 25 to 40 feet depending on terrain. Alternative C would include hauling limestone by truck from the mine quarry to the proposed railroad load-out facility on 7.1 miles of the existing county road and 0.8 miles of new road on BLM and private lands. This alternative would require straightening the existing road alignment and widening the road for public safety and use by haul trucks. Under Alternative D, limestone would be hauled by truck on new road, where feasible, to decrease the effect on the county road. Total road length required would be 7.2 miles including 5.7 miles of new road and 1.5 miles of existing, but reconstructed county road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the proposed conveyor crossing would facilitate minerals development in accordance with BLM policies, plans, and programs and the policies of the South Dakota Resource Area 1987 Resource Management Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 16 acres of soils would be permanently disturbed and be subject to potential introduction of weeds, 30,000 gallons of water per day would be used during construction, and 2 million gallons of water per year would be used for dust abatement in the conveyor. The proposed 6.6 mile elevated conveyor would have a visual impact on the viewshed over much of its entire length, most obviously where the conveyor would be close to or cross Dewey Road. Alternatives C and D would use 60,000 gallons of water per day for road construction and 6 million gallons of water per day for dust abatement on the road. Noise from the proposed haul road would impact residents of Dewey. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090257, 181 pages and maps, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-MT-040-2009-0002-EIS KW - Forests KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Quarries KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Visual Resources KW - Black Hills National Forest KW - South Dakota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEWEY+CONVEYOR+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEWEY+CONVEYOR+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Belle Fourche, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756825926; 13956-090252_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park is composed of 99 separate units, known as reservations, located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Residential and commercial areas surround all of the park units. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park in recent years. In 2007, sampling indicated 82 deer per square mile in the park and results of vegetation monitoring have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue the existing deer management plan, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.15 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the issue of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. Deer/vehicle collisions within the park could be reduced. Damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in nearby residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative A, no action would be taken to reverse the expected long-term continued growth in the deer population, and damage to vegetation would likely continue. Impairment to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species could result in the long term. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090252, 393 pages and maps, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 756825905; 13956-090252_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park is composed of 99 separate units, known as reservations, located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Residential and commercial areas surround all of the park units. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park in recent years. In 2007, sampling indicated 82 deer per square mile in the park and results of vegetation monitoring have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue the existing deer management plan, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.15 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the issue of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. Deer/vehicle collisions within the park could be reduced. Damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in nearby residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative A, no action would be taken to reverse the expected long-term continued growth in the deer population, and damage to vegetation would likely continue. Impairment to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species could result in the long term. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090252, 393 pages and maps, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 36346568; 13956 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park is composed of 99 separate units, known as reservations, located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Residential and commercial areas surround all of the park units. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park in recent years. In 2007, sampling indicated 82 deer per square mile in the park and results of vegetation monitoring have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue the existing deer management plan, are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.15 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the issue of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. Deer/vehicle collisions within the park could be reduced. Damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in nearby residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative A, no action would be taken to reverse the expected long-term continued growth in the deer population, and damage to vegetation would likely continue. Impairment to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species could result in the long term. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090252, 393 pages and maps, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEWEY CONVEYOR PROJECT, CUSTER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 36345094; 13961 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of an application by GCC Dakotah, Inc. for construction of a 6.6-mile conveyor system as a means to transport limestone from a future quarry location to a rail load-out facility near Dewey, Custer County, South Dakota is proposed. If the application is approved, a special permit and a right-of-way (ROW) would be required for the conveyor to cross federal lands. GCC Dakotah has located a limestone deposit several miles north of Dewey where the outcrop of the Minnekahta Limestone lies at, or close enough to, the surface to make mining economically feasible. The nearby town of Dewey is located along an existing rail transportation corridor. Most of the proposed construction corridor for the conveyor would be on land privately owned by GCC Dakotah, but segments would need to cross 1.0 miles of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 1.4 miles of land within the Black Hills National Forest. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to visual resources, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B) are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would include an elevated, enclosed conveyor belt, a one-lane service road and access points. On level ground, the elevated conveyor would be about 16-feet high, and would provide nine feet of vertical clearance beneath the structure. Support structures would be required at intervals of 25 to 40 feet depending on terrain. Alternative C would include hauling limestone by truck from the mine quarry to the proposed railroad load-out facility on 7.1 miles of the existing county road and 0.8 miles of new road on BLM and private lands. This alternative would require straightening the existing road alignment and widening the road for public safety and use by haul trucks. Under Alternative D, limestone would be hauled by truck on new road, where feasible, to decrease the effect on the county road. Total road length required would be 7.2 miles including 5.7 miles of new road and 1.5 miles of existing, but reconstructed county road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the proposed conveyor crossing would facilitate minerals development in accordance with BLM policies, plans, and programs and the policies of the South Dakota Resource Area 1987 Resource Management Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, 16 acres of soils would be permanently disturbed and be subject to potential introduction of weeds, 30,000 gallons of water per day would be used during construction, and 2 million gallons of water per year would be used for dust abatement in the conveyor. The proposed 6.6 mile elevated conveyor would have a visual impact on the viewshed over much of its entire length, most obviously where the conveyor would be close to or cross Dewey Road. Alternatives C and D would use 60,000 gallons of water per day for road construction and 6 million gallons of water per day for dust abatement on the road. Noise from the proposed haul road would impact residents of Dewey. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090257, 181 pages and maps, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-MT-040-2009-0002-EIS KW - Forests KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Quarries KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Visual Resources KW - Black Hills National Forest KW - South Dakota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEWEY+CONVEYOR+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=DEWEY+CONVEYOR+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Belle Fourche, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT, DOLORES AND MONTEZUMA COUNTIES, COLORADO: PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36344607; 13959 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for 165,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument is proposed. The monument, which is located in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado, offers rich, well-preserved remnants of Native American culture, spectacular landforms, a wide variety of wildlife species, and unique recreation opportunities. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cultural resources, grazing and rangeland conservation, oil and gas resources, and transportation and recreation resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2007. The proposed plan, described and analyzed as Alternative VI in this final EIS, is a refinement of Alternative V. Alternative II would maximize cultural resource protection, Alternative III would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while providing for resource use and development, and Alternative IV would emphasize cultural resource protection and natural resource values while encouraging resource use and development. Alternative V, the preferred alternative, would emphasize cultural resource values (including tribal values), cultural resource protection and protection and enhancement of natural resources while providing for resource use and development. Alternative IV would add adjustments in special recreation management areas. The proposed plan would maintain large blocks of undisturbed land and would provide for the retrieval of information not only on individual sites and artifacts, but also on their interconnectedness. The management plan would develop the outdoor museum concept with self-discovery of cultural and natural resources as a focal activity. From 13 to 25 sites would be developed for facilitated visitation through the use of roads and interpretive signs. To protect against drainage, up to 880 acres would be opened for oil and gas leasing. Rangeland resources would be managed to reduce conflicts between grazing and recreational activities and to protect cultural resources by closing five grazing allotments. Forage allocation would be calculated at 6,437 active animal unit months (AUMs), with 3,706 AUMs suspended. Common preserve allotments would be established. The duration and extent of spring livestock grazing and implementation of rest-rotation grazing schedules would reduce authorized use and related damage to vegetation and riparian resources. Recreation objectives would be achieved through management of special recreation management areas; 11 facilities and supporting infrastructure would be developed to enhance transportation and recreation use. Approximately 172 miles of road would be maintained, with many user-created roads closed and reclaimed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide for an appropriate balance between resource exploitation and cultural resources conservation and interpretation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reduction of AUM allocations on rangeland within the monument would reduce the economic base of some ranchers. Grazing would result in the trampling of vegetation and the erosion of soils and sedimentation of streams. Oil and gas lease developments would result in the destruction of vegetation, removal and compaction of soil, and alteration of local geology and groundwater tables. Interpretative facilities would displace soil and vegetation and attract more visitors, resulting in an increase in intentional and unintentional damage to cultural and natural resources within the monument. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), Executive Order 2000, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Presidential Proclamation 7317. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0465D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090255, Volume I--588 pages, Volume II--279 pages, CD-ROM, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ancients National Monument KW - Colorado KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance KW - Executive Order 2000, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7317, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CANYONS+OF+THE+ANCIENTS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+DOLORES+AND+MONTEZUMA+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO%3A+PROPOSED+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Dolores, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUND MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16387102; 13960 AB - PURPOSE: Round Mountain Gold Corporation proposes to construct and operate the Round Mountain Expansion Project which would include the expansion of its existing open-pit gold mining and processing operations in the Round Mountain area and development of new facilities in the Gold Hill area. The proposed project is located in south-central Nevada 55 miles north of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada. Proposed activities would include expansion of the existing Round Mountain Project Boundary, and expansion of the Round Mountain open pit, North Waste Rock Dump, mill facility, tailings impoundment, growth media and ore stockpiles, storm water control and diversion structures, dewatering operations for the open pit, west and south dedicated leach pads, reusable pad, and process facilities. New facilities would include the development of the North Dedicated Leach Pad, lime silos, and surface installations and portal entry for an underground mine located at the bottom of the Round Mountain Pit. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves would be conducted within the Round Mountain Area. In the Gold Hill Area, new mining facilities would be developed including an open pit, two new waste rock dumps, new heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe precipitation plant, retort and refinery, haul roads and secondary roads, production water wells, rapid infiltration basins, and ancillary facilities. Exploration for additional gold ore reserves also would be conducted within the Gold Hill Area. The proposed project would include construction of a 1.1-mile transportation and utility corridor between the Round Mountain and Gold Hill areas, which would include a haul road, electric transmission line, water pipeline, and communication lines. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater and surface water impacts from pit dewatering, water quality impacts from acid-generating waste rock, pit lake formation, mercury content of ore, backfilling of pits with waste rock, closure of heap pads, big game species, bat species and habitat, noise, and relocation of a transmission line. In addition to the proposed action, two action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would allow for continued profitable recovery of gold and silver reserves and resources on federal mining claims that would meet the prevailing market demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would require new surface disturbance of 4,698 acres, including 4,581 acres of public land and 117 acres of private land. Direct impacts would include the generation and permanent disposal of 992 million tons (Mt) of waste rock and 998 Mt of processed ore in the Round Mountain Area and up to 144 Mt of waste rock and 48 Mt of processed ore in the Gold Hill Area. The East Smoky Valley Fault Zone in the western part of the proposed project area could generate earthquake-induced ground motion. Groundwater drawdown could affect water rights west of the proposed project area. Air quality would be affected by both construction and operation of mining facilities. In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed expansion would cause fugitive hydrogen cyanide emissions from new leach facilities. Indirect noise effects on the Alta Toquima Wilderness would occur, but primarily in the western reaches which are infrequently used. Long-term reduction in wildlife habitat would be 4,346 acres and permanent reduction would be 344 acres. New project-related fenced area would reduce the amount of land available for livestock grazing by 8,116 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Federal Land Policy, Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090256, Volume I--376 pages, Volume II--310 pages, July 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES-09-38 KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Earthquakes KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Refineries KW - Roads KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ROUND+MOUNTAIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALKER BASIN ACQUISITION PROGRAM, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WALKER BASIN ACQUISITION PROGRAM, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756825969; 13954-090250_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Funding of the University of Nevada acquisition and research program to increase average water inflow to Walker Lake by 50,000 acre-feet per year (af/yr) in Nevada is proposed. The Walker River originates in the eastern portion of the Sierra Nevada in California, flows into eastern Nevada, and empties into Walker Lake, an at-risk natural desert terminal lake that has no outlet. From 1882 to present, diversions from the river, primarily for upstream irrigated agriculture, have resulted in a 149-foot drop in the lake's surface elevation and a corresponding reduction in volume from about 10 million acre-feet (af) to less than 2 million af of water. Consequent changes from the decline in elevation of Walker Lake have caused the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration to increase from 2,500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in 1882 to nearly 16,000 mg/l in 2008, threatening the lake's viability as a fishery and impacting the health of the lake and its associated ecosystems. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater impacts, economic impacts, program management and goals, declining environmental conditions in the area, impacts in California from proposed changes in distribution of water rights, and the need to address all desert terminal lakes in a more comprehensive manner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed project and would fund the University to acquire land, water appurtenant to land, and related interests from willing sellers in Mason Valley, Smith Valley, and the East Walker area to provide, on average, 50,000 af/yr of additional inflow to Walker Lake. Approximately 82,000 af/yr of surface water would need to be acquired to make up for 32,000 af/yr of hydrologic losses. The Leasing Alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on purchase of water, not water rights, which would be retained by existing owners. The Efficiency Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve funding for a variety of conservation and water management improvements at both the farm and system level that could make water available for subsequent movement to Walker Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the acquisition program would provide sufficient water to Walker Lake to significantly reduce the TDS concentration and restore the health of the lake and the river basin. The proposed project and other action alternatives would improve native fish habitat as a result of increased flow, reduced temperature, and increased Lahontan cutthroat trout spawning habitat in the Walker River. Habitats of fish, wildlife, and vegetation would be improved on the Walker River Indian Reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact water supply and reduce irrigation, reduce canal flows, and reduce incidental availability of water from field runoff, seepage, or return flows. A decrease in groundwater recharge could affect water availability by decreasing the amount of water in storage in the groundwater basin. The proposed project and other action alternatives could result in the permanent or temporary conversion of cropland over time and could result in the spread of weeds and invasive plant species. Employment, income, and tax revenues from agricultural production would decline. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 107-171, Public Law 108-7 and Public Law 109-103. JF - EPA number: 090250, 431 pages and maps, July 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-39 KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Desert Land KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Research KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Walker Lake KW - Walker River KW - Public Law 107-171, Program Authorization KW - Public Law 108-7, Compliance KW - Public Law 109-103, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALKER+BASIN+ACQUISITION+PROGRAM%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WALKER+BASIN+ACQUISITION+PROGRAM%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALKER BASIN ACQUISITION PROGRAM, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WALKER BASIN ACQUISITION PROGRAM, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 756825628; 13954-090250_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Funding of the University of Nevada acquisition and research program to increase average water inflow to Walker Lake by 50,000 acre-feet per year (af/yr) in Nevada is proposed. The Walker River originates in the eastern portion of the Sierra Nevada in California, flows into eastern Nevada, and empties into Walker Lake, an at-risk natural desert terminal lake that has no outlet. From 1882 to present, diversions from the river, primarily for upstream irrigated agriculture, have resulted in a 149-foot drop in the lake's surface elevation and a corresponding reduction in volume from about 10 million acre-feet (af) to less than 2 million af of water. Consequent changes from the decline in elevation of Walker Lake have caused the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration to increase from 2,500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in 1882 to nearly 16,000 mg/l in 2008, threatening the lake's viability as a fishery and impacting the health of the lake and its associated ecosystems. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater impacts, economic impacts, program management and goals, declining environmental conditions in the area, impacts in California from proposed changes in distribution of water rights, and the need to address all desert terminal lakes in a more comprehensive manner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed project and would fund the University to acquire land, water appurtenant to land, and related interests from willing sellers in Mason Valley, Smith Valley, and the East Walker area to provide, on average, 50,000 af/yr of additional inflow to Walker Lake. Approximately 82,000 af/yr of surface water would need to be acquired to make up for 32,000 af/yr of hydrologic losses. The Leasing Alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on purchase of water, not water rights, which would be retained by existing owners. The Efficiency Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve funding for a variety of conservation and water management improvements at both the farm and system level that could make water available for subsequent movement to Walker Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the acquisition program would provide sufficient water to Walker Lake to significantly reduce the TDS concentration and restore the health of the lake and the river basin. The proposed project and other action alternatives would improve native fish habitat as a result of increased flow, reduced temperature, and increased Lahontan cutthroat trout spawning habitat in the Walker River. Habitats of fish, wildlife, and vegetation would be improved on the Walker River Indian Reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact water supply and reduce irrigation, reduce canal flows, and reduce incidental availability of water from field runoff, seepage, or return flows. A decrease in groundwater recharge could affect water availability by decreasing the amount of water in storage in the groundwater basin. The proposed project and other action alternatives could result in the permanent or temporary conversion of cropland over time and could result in the spread of weeds and invasive plant species. Employment, income, and tax revenues from agricultural production would decline. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 107-171, Public Law 108-7 and Public Law 109-103. JF - EPA number: 090250, 431 pages and maps, July 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-39 KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Desert Land KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Research KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Walker Lake KW - Walker River KW - Public Law 107-171, Program Authorization KW - Public Law 108-7, Compliance KW - Public Law 109-103, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALKER+BASIN+ACQUISITION+PROGRAM%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WALKER+BASIN+ACQUISITION+PROGRAM%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORT STANWIX NATIONAL MONUMENT, ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 16388067; 13955 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan (GMP) for Fort Stanwix National Monument (NM) in Rome, Oneida County, New York is proposed. During the American Revolution, the successful defense of Fort Stanwix and the Battle of Oriskany in 1777 undermined British strategy, helping to win European allies for the United States and contributing to victory at the pivotal Battle of Saratoga. The NM consists of a reconstructed Revolutionary War-era fort, with related outworks, built on the footprint of the original Fort Stanwix. The reconstituted fort commemorates the broader contest of nations for economic and political control of the rich resources of the Mohawk Valley region and the Northern Frontier during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Since the planning process began in Fiscal Year 1997, two studies examining areas that are geographically and thematically relevant to Fort Stanwix NM were undertaken. Those studies addressed Oriskany Battlefield Historic Site in Whitestown and the Northern Frontier, encompassing a 10-county area in central New York. Neither area was recommended for inclusion in the National Park System. Key issues addressed during scoping for the revision of the Fort Stanwix GMP are those related to the lack of a properly defined boundary, Fort Stanwix as a regional asset, the accessibility of the resources within the NM, maintenance and administration requirements, and wayfinding and safety issues. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which would guide park management and philosophy for the next 15 to 20 years, the context of interpretation and collaborative heritage development and preservation initiatives involving local and regional partners would be significantly broadened. The GMP would address strategies for the provision of visitor services and the protection of resources, identify development proposals and associated costs, examine partnership opportunities, and address carrying capacity and park boundary issues. Specific attention would be focused on interpretive emphasis, visitor orientation, interpretive and educational programming, and parking and circulation. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime. Estimated one-time capital costs for alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, range from $533,000 to $639,600 and from $1.2 million to $1.5 million. Respective annual operating costs are estimated to range from $1.1 million to $1.3 million and from $1.4 million to $1.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The GMP would allow visitors, including virtual visitors, to Fort Stanwix NM to appreciate the significance of the military events at the fort that shaped the outcome of the Revolutionary War as well as the place that the fort played in relations between American Indians, the British, French, and Americans during the 18th Century. Quality programming would communicate the park's stories for a range of audiences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Developments and visitation at the fort site would have long-term, moderate impacts on archaeological resources, the reconstituted fort, the fort landscape, and circulation of traffic in the vicinity of the site. [LEG]Public Law 74-291. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0443D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090251, 107 pages, July 22, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: FES 09-14 KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Management KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Fort Stanwix National Monument KW - New York KW - Public Law 74-291, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORT+STANWIX+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ONEIDA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=FORT+STANWIX+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+ONEIDA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rome, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALKER BASIN ACQUISITION PROGRAM, LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 16378875; 13954 AB - PURPOSE: Funding of the University of Nevada acquisition and research program to increase average water inflow to Walker Lake by 50,000 acre-feet per year (af/yr) in Nevada is proposed. The Walker River originates in the eastern portion of the Sierra Nevada in California, flows into eastern Nevada, and empties into Walker Lake, an at-risk natural desert terminal lake that has no outlet. From 1882 to present, diversions from the river, primarily for upstream irrigated agriculture, have resulted in a 149-foot drop in the lake's surface elevation and a corresponding reduction in volume from about 10 million acre-feet (af) to less than 2 million af of water. Consequent changes from the decline in elevation of Walker Lake have caused the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration to increase from 2,500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in 1882 to nearly 16,000 mg/l in 2008, threatening the lake's viability as a fishery and impacting the health of the lake and its associated ecosystems. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to groundwater impacts, economic impacts, program management and goals, declining environmental conditions in the area, impacts in California from proposed changes in distribution of water rights, and the need to address all desert terminal lakes in a more comprehensive manner. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed project and would fund the University to acquire land, water appurtenant to land, and related interests from willing sellers in Mason Valley, Smith Valley, and the East Walker area to provide, on average, 50,000 af/yr of additional inflow to Walker Lake. Approximately 82,000 af/yr of surface water would need to be acquired to make up for 32,000 af/yr of hydrologic losses. The Leasing Alternative (Alternative 2) would focus on purchase of water, not water rights, which would be retained by existing owners. The Efficiency Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve funding for a variety of conservation and water management improvements at both the farm and system level that could make water available for subsequent movement to Walker Lake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the acquisition program would provide sufficient water to Walker Lake to significantly reduce the TDS concentration and restore the health of the lake and the river basin. The proposed project and other action alternatives would improve native fish habitat as a result of increased flow, reduced temperature, and increased Lahontan cutthroat trout spawning habitat in the Walker River. Habitats of fish, wildlife, and vegetation would be improved on the Walker River Indian Reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact water supply and reduce irrigation, reduce canal flows, and reduce incidental availability of water from field runoff, seepage, or return flows. A decrease in groundwater recharge could affect water availability by decreasing the amount of water in storage in the groundwater basin. The proposed project and other action alternatives could result in the permanent or temporary conversion of cropland over time and could result in the spread of weeds and invasive plant species. Employment, income, and tax revenues from agricultural production would decline. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 107-171, Public Law 108-7 and Public Law 109-103. JF - EPA number: 090250, 431 pages and maps, July 22, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-39 KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Desert Land KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Research KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Walker Lake KW - Walker River KW - Public Law 107-171, Program Authorization KW - Public Law 108-7, Compliance KW - Public Law 109-103, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALKER+BASIN+ACQUISITION+PROGRAM%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=WALKER+BASIN+ACQUISITION+PROGRAM%2C+LYON+AND+MINERAL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAFT SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND EXCHANGE. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - DRAFT SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND EXCHANGE. AN - 756825938; 13948-090244_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The exchange of federal lands located within the Santa Ana River Wash for lands owned by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (District) in San Bernardino County, California is proposed together with the amendment of the South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP) to support the exchange. Competing land uses in the area have been a concern for many years. The local geology provides excellent percolation for recharging the groundwater basin with native Santa Ana River and Mill Creek water while also providing sand and gravel deposits of economic significance. The SCRMP, approved in June 1994, provides policy guidance to manage resource values and multiple uses of public lands within Santa Ana River Wash Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The land exchange and SCRMP amendment would assist with implementation of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan), a multi-jurisdictional land management strategy adopted in 2008 which is intended to balance the continued use of land and mineral resources with environmentally sensitive maintenance of biological and hydrological resources. The proposed land exchange is one of nine major components of the Wash Plan. The Wash Plan area contains both public and private lands and the parcels proposed for exchange are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River Canyon at Greenspot Road and extend westward for six miles to Alabama Street. Aggregate mining has occurred within the area, generally on private land, for several decades. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to endangered species, mineral resources, water resources, recreation, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, land management, and traffic management. Two alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the proposed land exchange would not occur and the SCRMP amendment would not be necessary. Habitat preservation, mining, and water conservation activities, under current land-use management practices, would continue to be fragmented throughout the Wash area. The proposed action (Alternative B), which is also the preferred alternative, would allow the exchange of ownership of 315 acres of federal land with 320 acres of District-owned land and amendment of the SCRMP. Additional lands, including up to 85 acres of federal lands and up to 60 acres of District land would be exchanged if necessary to equalize values. Of the 315 acres of lands that would be acquired by the District, 259 acres would be leased for mining and 56 acres would be set aside for habitat conservation. As a result of the exchange, the District would be required to seek a conservation easement for areas designated for habitat conservation under the Wash Plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of isolated lands which have been previously degraded by mining activities within the Santa Ana River Wash ACEC, and in exchange, acquire District lands with high habitat value adjacent to an existing ACEC parcel. The proposed exchange would allow the coordinated development of multiple resource uses and would result in an increase in lands designated for managed habitat protection, improved connectivity to wildlife movement, and linkage for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, slender-horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woolly-star habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: To the extent that the proposed action facilitates mining activities, emissions could increase to levels that would exceed regional thresholds. Mining use would expand from a disturbed area of 61 acres to 259 acres with consequent increases in traffic activity. Ground disturbance and quarry expansion activities would contribute to an increase in the severity of existing degraded visual quality in the near view areas of the mining operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090244, 378 pages and maps, July 14, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Mining KW - Sand KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Santa Ana River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAFT+SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+SANTA+ANA+RIVER+WASH+LAND+EXCHANGE.&rft.title=DRAFT+SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+SANTA+ANA+RIVER+WASH+LAND+EXCHANGE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAFT SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND EXCHANGE. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - DRAFT SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND EXCHANGE. AN - 756825831; 13948-090244_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The exchange of federal lands located within the Santa Ana River Wash for lands owned by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (District) in San Bernardino County, California is proposed together with the amendment of the South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP) to support the exchange. Competing land uses in the area have been a concern for many years. The local geology provides excellent percolation for recharging the groundwater basin with native Santa Ana River and Mill Creek water while also providing sand and gravel deposits of economic significance. The SCRMP, approved in June 1994, provides policy guidance to manage resource values and multiple uses of public lands within Santa Ana River Wash Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The land exchange and SCRMP amendment would assist with implementation of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan), a multi-jurisdictional land management strategy adopted in 2008 which is intended to balance the continued use of land and mineral resources with environmentally sensitive maintenance of biological and hydrological resources. The proposed land exchange is one of nine major components of the Wash Plan. The Wash Plan area contains both public and private lands and the parcels proposed for exchange are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River Canyon at Greenspot Road and extend westward for six miles to Alabama Street. Aggregate mining has occurred within the area, generally on private land, for several decades. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to endangered species, mineral resources, water resources, recreation, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, land management, and traffic management. Two alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the proposed land exchange would not occur and the SCRMP amendment would not be necessary. Habitat preservation, mining, and water conservation activities, under current land-use management practices, would continue to be fragmented throughout the Wash area. The proposed action (Alternative B), which is also the preferred alternative, would allow the exchange of ownership of 315 acres of federal land with 320 acres of District-owned land and amendment of the SCRMP. Additional lands, including up to 85 acres of federal lands and up to 60 acres of District land would be exchanged if necessary to equalize values. Of the 315 acres of lands that would be acquired by the District, 259 acres would be leased for mining and 56 acres would be set aside for habitat conservation. As a result of the exchange, the District would be required to seek a conservation easement for areas designated for habitat conservation under the Wash Plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of isolated lands which have been previously degraded by mining activities within the Santa Ana River Wash ACEC, and in exchange, acquire District lands with high habitat value adjacent to an existing ACEC parcel. The proposed exchange would allow the coordinated development of multiple resource uses and would result in an increase in lands designated for managed habitat protection, improved connectivity to wildlife movement, and linkage for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, slender-horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woolly-star habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: To the extent that the proposed action facilitates mining activities, emissions could increase to levels that would exceed regional thresholds. Mining use would expand from a disturbed area of 61 acres to 259 acres with consequent increases in traffic activity. Ground disturbance and quarry expansion activities would contribute to an increase in the severity of existing degraded visual quality in the near view areas of the mining operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090244, 378 pages and maps, July 14, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Mining KW - Sand KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Santa Ana River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAFT+SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+SANTA+ANA+RIVER+WASH+LAND+EXCHANGE.&rft.title=DRAFT+SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+SANTA+ANA+RIVER+WASH+LAND+EXCHANGE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DRAFT SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER WASH LAND EXCHANGE. AN - 16385347; 13948 AB - PURPOSE: The exchange of federal lands located within the Santa Ana River Wash for lands owned by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (District) in San Bernardino County, California is proposed together with the amendment of the South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP) to support the exchange. Competing land uses in the area have been a concern for many years. The local geology provides excellent percolation for recharging the groundwater basin with native Santa Ana River and Mill Creek water while also providing sand and gravel deposits of economic significance. The SCRMP, approved in June 1994, provides policy guidance to manage resource values and multiple uses of public lands within Santa Ana River Wash Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The land exchange and SCRMP amendment would assist with implementation of the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan (Wash Plan), a multi-jurisdictional land management strategy adopted in 2008 which is intended to balance the continued use of land and mineral resources with environmentally sensitive maintenance of biological and hydrological resources. The proposed land exchange is one of nine major components of the Wash Plan. The Wash Plan area contains both public and private lands and the parcels proposed for exchange are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River Canyon at Greenspot Road and extend westward for six miles to Alabama Street. Aggregate mining has occurred within the area, generally on private land, for several decades. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to endangered species, mineral resources, water resources, recreation, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, land management, and traffic management. Two alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the proposed land exchange would not occur and the SCRMP amendment would not be necessary. Habitat preservation, mining, and water conservation activities, under current land-use management practices, would continue to be fragmented throughout the Wash area. The proposed action (Alternative B), which is also the preferred alternative, would allow the exchange of ownership of 315 acres of federal land with 320 acres of District-owned land and amendment of the SCRMP. Additional lands, including up to 85 acres of federal lands and up to 60 acres of District land would be exchanged if necessary to equalize values. Of the 315 acres of lands that would be acquired by the District, 259 acres would be leased for mining and 56 acres would be set aside for habitat conservation. As a result of the exchange, the District would be required to seek a conservation easement for areas designated for habitat conservation under the Wash Plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would dispose of isolated lands which have been previously degraded by mining activities within the Santa Ana River Wash ACEC, and in exchange, acquire District lands with high habitat value adjacent to an existing ACEC parcel. The proposed exchange would allow the coordinated development of multiple resource uses and would result in an increase in lands designated for managed habitat protection, improved connectivity to wildlife movement, and linkage for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, slender-horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woolly-star habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: To the extent that the proposed action facilitates mining activities, emissions could increase to levels that would exceed regional thresholds. Mining use would expand from a disturbed area of 61 acres to 259 acres with consequent increases in traffic activity. Ground disturbance and quarry expansion activities would contribute to an increase in the severity of existing degraded visual quality in the near view areas of the mining operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 090244, 378 pages and maps, July 14, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Gravel KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Mining KW - Sand KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Santa Ana River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DRAFT+SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+SANTA+ANA+RIVER+WASH+LAND+EXCHANGE.&rft.title=DRAFT+SOUTH+COAST+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+FOR+THE+SANTA+ANA+RIVER+WASH+LAND+EXCHANGE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826265; 13946-090242_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) - California Aqueduct Intertie, Central Valley Project, California are proposed. The proposed Intertie would be located in Alameda or San Joaquin County and involves constructing and operating a pumping plant and pipeline connection between the DMC and the California Aqueduct which would be used primarily in winter months to fill the San Luis Reservoir earlier each year. The project also includes an interconnection and the construction and operation of a 69-kilovolt transmission line for delivery of power for the Intertie by the Western Area Power Administration. The Intertie is being considered by the Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority to improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The CVP, operated by Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP) maintain facilities in California's Central Valley to deliver water supplies to right-holders and CWP/SWP contractors. CVP water is pumped from the Jones pumping plant located northwest of the city of Tracy and can deliver about seven million acre-feet (maf) annually for agriculture, urban, and wildlife refuge use. The Jones plant discharges water into the DMC, a gravity-flow canal located in the western San Joaquin Valley which travels south for 117 miles to the Mendota Pool, a small reservoir. The Jones plant and the DMC were designed to convey 4,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) but the plant is currently restricted by DMC conveyance conditions to 4,200 cfs. Four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would construct and operate a new pumping plant and pipeline connection at mile 7.2 of the DMC and mile 9 of the California Aqueduct where the DMC and the California Aqueduct are approximately 500 feet apart. Alternative 3 would be of similar design and the same in operation, but would locate the facilities at mile 11.6 of the DMC and mile 13.8 of the California Aqueduct in order to avoid high-voltage transmission lines. Alternative 4 would use excess capacity at the SWP Banks pumping plant to pump the increment of CVP water that cannot be conveyed in the DMC without the Intertie and would install a temporary intertie during emergencies and maintenance activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Intertie would improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project by improving the DMC conveyance conditions that restrict the Jones pumping plant to less than its authorized pumping capacity of 4,600 cubic feet per second. Increased operational flexibility would allow the CVP and SWP to respond to emergencies, conduct necessary system maintenance, and provide capacity. The proposed project would result in beneficial effects on San Joaquin River Delta fishery and aquatic resources under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 due to a shift in the timing of pumping at the Jones plant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Noise impacts from construction and temporary operation of the Intertie would affect rural residences in the project area. The project would have potential for injury or mortality of California salamander, California red-legged frog, Western spadefoot toad, and Western burrowing owl and potential for disturbance of nesting Northern harrier, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and other migratory birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090242, 611 pages and maps, July 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-36 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826243; 13946-090242_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) - California Aqueduct Intertie, Central Valley Project, California are proposed. The proposed Intertie would be located in Alameda or San Joaquin County and involves constructing and operating a pumping plant and pipeline connection between the DMC and the California Aqueduct which would be used primarily in winter months to fill the San Luis Reservoir earlier each year. The project also includes an interconnection and the construction and operation of a 69-kilovolt transmission line for delivery of power for the Intertie by the Western Area Power Administration. The Intertie is being considered by the Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority to improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The CVP, operated by Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP) maintain facilities in California's Central Valley to deliver water supplies to right-holders and CWP/SWP contractors. CVP water is pumped from the Jones pumping plant located northwest of the city of Tracy and can deliver about seven million acre-feet (maf) annually for agriculture, urban, and wildlife refuge use. The Jones plant discharges water into the DMC, a gravity-flow canal located in the western San Joaquin Valley which travels south for 117 miles to the Mendota Pool, a small reservoir. The Jones plant and the DMC were designed to convey 4,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) but the plant is currently restricted by DMC conveyance conditions to 4,200 cfs. Four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would construct and operate a new pumping plant and pipeline connection at mile 7.2 of the DMC and mile 9 of the California Aqueduct where the DMC and the California Aqueduct are approximately 500 feet apart. Alternative 3 would be of similar design and the same in operation, but would locate the facilities at mile 11.6 of the DMC and mile 13.8 of the California Aqueduct in order to avoid high-voltage transmission lines. Alternative 4 would use excess capacity at the SWP Banks pumping plant to pump the increment of CVP water that cannot be conveyed in the DMC without the Intertie and would install a temporary intertie during emergencies and maintenance activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Intertie would improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project by improving the DMC conveyance conditions that restrict the Jones pumping plant to less than its authorized pumping capacity of 4,600 cubic feet per second. Increased operational flexibility would allow the CVP and SWP to respond to emergencies, conduct necessary system maintenance, and provide capacity. The proposed project would result in beneficial effects on San Joaquin River Delta fishery and aquatic resources under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 due to a shift in the timing of pumping at the Jones plant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Noise impacts from construction and temporary operation of the Intertie would affect rural residences in the project area. The project would have potential for injury or mortality of California salamander, California red-legged frog, Western spadefoot toad, and Western burrowing owl and potential for disturbance of nesting Northern harrier, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and other migratory birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090242, 611 pages and maps, July 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-36 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756826232; 13946-090242_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) - California Aqueduct Intertie, Central Valley Project, California are proposed. The proposed Intertie would be located in Alameda or San Joaquin County and involves constructing and operating a pumping plant and pipeline connection between the DMC and the California Aqueduct which would be used primarily in winter months to fill the San Luis Reservoir earlier each year. The project also includes an interconnection and the construction and operation of a 69-kilovolt transmission line for delivery of power for the Intertie by the Western Area Power Administration. The Intertie is being considered by the Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority to improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The CVP, operated by Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP) maintain facilities in California's Central Valley to deliver water supplies to right-holders and CWP/SWP contractors. CVP water is pumped from the Jones pumping plant located northwest of the city of Tracy and can deliver about seven million acre-feet (maf) annually for agriculture, urban, and wildlife refuge use. The Jones plant discharges water into the DMC, a gravity-flow canal located in the western San Joaquin Valley which travels south for 117 miles to the Mendota Pool, a small reservoir. The Jones plant and the DMC were designed to convey 4,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) but the plant is currently restricted by DMC conveyance conditions to 4,200 cfs. Four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would construct and operate a new pumping plant and pipeline connection at mile 7.2 of the DMC and mile 9 of the California Aqueduct where the DMC and the California Aqueduct are approximately 500 feet apart. Alternative 3 would be of similar design and the same in operation, but would locate the facilities at mile 11.6 of the DMC and mile 13.8 of the California Aqueduct in order to avoid high-voltage transmission lines. Alternative 4 would use excess capacity at the SWP Banks pumping plant to pump the increment of CVP water that cannot be conveyed in the DMC without the Intertie and would install a temporary intertie during emergencies and maintenance activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Intertie would improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project by improving the DMC conveyance conditions that restrict the Jones pumping plant to less than its authorized pumping capacity of 4,600 cubic feet per second. Increased operational flexibility would allow the CVP and SWP to respond to emergencies, conduct necessary system maintenance, and provide capacity. The proposed project would result in beneficial effects on San Joaquin River Delta fishery and aquatic resources under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 due to a shift in the timing of pumping at the Jones plant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Noise impacts from construction and temporary operation of the Intertie would affect rural residences in the project area. The project would have potential for injury or mortality of California salamander, California red-legged frog, Western spadefoot toad, and Western burrowing owl and potential for disturbance of nesting Northern harrier, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and other migratory birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090242, 611 pages and maps, July 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-36 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. AN - 756825795; 13945-090241_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Federal funding to help the City of Wichita complete the Equus Beds Aquifer Storage Recharge and Recovery Project (ASR), Harvey, Sedgwick, and Reno counties, Kansas is proposed. The ASR project is part of Wichita's Integrated Local Water Supply Plan and would pump water from the Little Arkansas River basin into the region's Equus Beds Aquifer for storage and later re-use. When completed, the ASR project would become the Equus Beds Division of the Bureau of Reclamation's Wichita Project. The Equus Beds aquifer lies under about 900,000 acres in six Kansas counties, but the project would cover only a small part of this area in northern Sedgwick and southern Harvey counties. The Equus Beds Well Field provided 60 percent of the city's water through 1992 and since that time the percentage has decreased to 32 percent. The proposed action is for Reclamation to help fund the 100 million gallon per day ASR project which would draw water from the river, pre-treat it, and recharge the aquifer in phases. Sixty percent of the water would come from surface water intakes, the rest from diversion wells installed along the river bank. Three recharge basins and 99 recharge recovery wells connected by pipelines would recharge the aquifer. Water would also be pumped directly from the river intakes. Two alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the Bureau of Reclamation would provide up to 25 percent of project costs or $30 million (indexed to 2003), whichever is less, to fund and implement the remaining phases of the project. The city has completed Phase I and is at work on Phase IIa and is requesting federal help for phases IIb, III, and IV. Total cost of construction of the project would be more than $500 million, including $27 million already spent on Phase I and $250 million estimated to be spent during phase II. Under the No Action alternative, the city would proceed with construction and operation of the ASR project without federal reimbursement. This alternative would have the same facilities built in the same sequence for the same construction and operation and maintenance costs as the preferred alternative, but with the city providing 100 percent of the construction, operation and maintenance costs of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Completion of the ASR project would allow Wichita to meet average daily water demands until 2050. The ASR would provide a safe and reliable municipal and industrial water supply by preventing the continuing decline of water levels in the Equus Beds aquifer. Base flow should increase in both the Arkansas and Little Arkansas rivers, and greater flows should improve aquatic habitat. Aquifer storage should help reduce impacts from evaporation and quality degradation. The ASR project should increase water levels in the aquifer to near historic levels and help to slow saltwater degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities would cause minor changes to surface geology, except in the case of recharge basins, where the removal of topsoils would be permanent. About 266 acres of soils and 65 acres of prime farmland would be permanently disturbed by construction of pre-treatment plants and other facilities. Project costs per customer under the No Action alternative (no federal funding) could raise environmental justice issues related to standards for maximum household payment capability for water. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 109-299 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090241, Draft EIS--174 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Rivers KW - Salinity Control KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Arkansas River KW - Kansas KW - Little Arkansas River KW - Public Law 109-299, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL - CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT INTERTIE, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16379033; 13946 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) - California Aqueduct Intertie, Central Valley Project, California are proposed. The proposed Intertie would be located in Alameda or San Joaquin County and involves constructing and operating a pumping plant and pipeline connection between the DMC and the California Aqueduct which would be used primarily in winter months to fill the San Luis Reservoir earlier each year. The project also includes an interconnection and the construction and operation of a 69-kilovolt transmission line for delivery of power for the Intertie by the Western Area Power Administration. The Intertie is being considered by the Bureau of Reclamation and the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority to improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project (CVP). The CVP, operated by Reclamation, and the State Water Project (SWP) maintain facilities in California's Central Valley to deliver water supplies to right-holders and CWP/SWP contractors. CVP water is pumped from the Jones pumping plant located northwest of the city of Tracy and can deliver about seven million acre-feet (maf) annually for agriculture, urban, and wildlife refuge use. The Jones plant discharges water into the DMC, a gravity-flow canal located in the western San Joaquin Valley which travels south for 117 miles to the Mendota Pool, a small reservoir. The Jones plant and the DMC were designed to convey 4,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) but the plant is currently restricted by DMC conveyance conditions to 4,200 cfs. Four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would construct and operate a new pumping plant and pipeline connection at mile 7.2 of the DMC and mile 9 of the California Aqueduct where the DMC and the California Aqueduct are approximately 500 feet apart. Alternative 3 would be of similar design and the same in operation, but would locate the facilities at mile 11.6 of the DMC and mile 13.8 of the California Aqueduct in order to avoid high-voltage transmission lines. Alternative 4 would use excess capacity at the SWP Banks pumping plant to pump the increment of CVP water that cannot be conveyed in the DMC without the Intertie and would install a temporary intertie during emergencies and maintenance activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Intertie would improve the water supply reliability of the Central Valley Project by improving the DMC conveyance conditions that restrict the Jones pumping plant to less than its authorized pumping capacity of 4,600 cubic feet per second. Increased operational flexibility would allow the CVP and SWP to respond to emergencies, conduct necessary system maintenance, and provide capacity. The proposed project would result in beneficial effects on San Joaquin River Delta fishery and aquatic resources under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 due to a shift in the timing of pumping at the Jones plant. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Noise impacts from construction and temporary operation of the Intertie would affect rural residences in the project area. The project would have potential for injury or mortality of California salamander, California red-legged frog, Western spadefoot toad, and Western burrowing owl and potential for disturbance of nesting Northern harrier, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and other migratory birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090242, 611 pages and maps, July 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES-09-36 KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Fish KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Transmission Lines KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DELTA-MENDOTA+CANAL+-+CALIFORNIA+AQUEDUCT+INTERTIE%2C+CENTRAL+VALLEY+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER STORAGE RECHARGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT, EQUUS BEDS DIVISION, WICHITA PROJECT, KANSAS, HARVEY, SEDGWICK, AND RENO COUNTIES, KANSAS. AN - 16377528; 13945 AB - PURPOSE: Federal funding to help the City of Wichita complete the Equus Beds Aquifer Storage Recharge and Recovery Project (ASR), Harvey, Sedgwick, and Reno counties, Kansas is proposed. The ASR project is part of Wichita's Integrated Local Water Supply Plan and would pump water from the Little Arkansas River basin into the region's Equus Beds Aquifer for storage and later re-use. When completed, the ASR project would become the Equus Beds Division of the Bureau of Reclamation's Wichita Project. The Equus Beds aquifer lies under about 900,000 acres in six Kansas counties, but the project would cover only a small part of this area in northern Sedgwick and southern Harvey counties. The Equus Beds Well Field provided 60 percent of the city's water through 1992 and since that time the percentage has decreased to 32 percent. The proposed action is for Reclamation to help fund the 100 million gallon per day ASR project which would draw water from the river, pre-treat it, and recharge the aquifer in phases. Sixty percent of the water would come from surface water intakes, the rest from diversion wells installed along the river bank. Three recharge basins and 99 recharge recovery wells connected by pipelines would recharge the aquifer. Water would also be pumped directly from the river intakes. Two alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, the Bureau of Reclamation would provide up to 25 percent of project costs or $30 million (indexed to 2003), whichever is less, to fund and implement the remaining phases of the project. The city has completed Phase I and is at work on Phase IIa and is requesting federal help for phases IIb, III, and IV. Total cost of construction of the project would be more than $500 million, including $27 million already spent on Phase I and $250 million estimated to be spent during phase II. Under the No Action alternative, the city would proceed with construction and operation of the ASR project without federal reimbursement. This alternative would have the same facilities built in the same sequence for the same construction and operation and maintenance costs as the preferred alternative, but with the city providing 100 percent of the construction, operation and maintenance costs of the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Completion of the ASR project would allow Wichita to meet average daily water demands until 2050. The ASR would provide a safe and reliable municipal and industrial water supply by preventing the continuing decline of water levels in the Equus Beds aquifer. Base flow should increase in both the Arkansas and Little Arkansas rivers, and greater flows should improve aquatic habitat. Aquifer storage should help reduce impacts from evaporation and quality degradation. The ASR project should increase water levels in the aquifer to near historic levels and help to slow saltwater degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of facilities would cause minor changes to surface geology, except in the case of recharge basins, where the removal of topsoils would be permanent. About 266 acres of soils and 65 acres of prime farmland would be permanently disturbed by construction of pre-treatment plants and other facilities. Project costs per customer under the No Action alternative (no federal funding) could raise environmental justice issues related to standards for maximum household payment capability for water. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 109-299 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090241, Draft EIS--174 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-27 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Rivers KW - Salinity Control KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Arkansas River KW - Kansas KW - Little Arkansas River KW - Public Law 109-299, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.title=EQUUS+BEDS+AQUIFER+STORAGE+RECHARGE+AND+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+EQUUS+BEDS+DIVISION%2C+WICHITA+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS%2C+HARVEY%2C+SEDGWICK%2C+AND+RENO+COUNTIES%2C+KANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. AN - 756826592; 13937-090233_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water supply system are proposed to provide water to the eastern section of the Navajo Nation and the southwestern part of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in Arizona and New Mexico and the city of Gallup, New Mexico The Navajo nation and Gallup rely on a rapidly depleting groundwater supply that is inadequate to meet present needs much less anticipated growth. Other water sources are needed to meet current and future municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would divert water from the San Juan River downstream of Fruitland, New Mexico, just above the existing Public Service Company of New Mexico diversion structure, treat the water to meet drinking water standards, and deliver it along Highway N36 and south to Navajo chapters along U.S. 491. Water would be provided to Window Rock, Arizona and Crownpoint, New Mexico through sublaterals. Water delivery would also be provided to the city of Gallup, New Mexico through the Gallup Regional System. Another diversion would originate at Cutter Reservoir, and existing regulating reservoir on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, and would convey water to the eastern portion of the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache Nations. Cost of facility construction is estimated at $864.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed system would provide a long-term supply of treated M&I water to the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the city of Gallup, serving 250,000 people by the year 2040. Annually, the water supply system would provide 27,193 acre-feet, 1,200 acre-feet, and 7,500 acre-feet, respectively, to the above-mentioned populations. The average flow of the San Juan River would be increased by five cubic feet per second between Navajo Dam and the river diversion, providing additional dilution and, thereby, improving water quality and fish habitat. The project would provide 650 jobs during the construction phase, boosting individual and regional income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove 37,764 acre-feet of water annually from the San Juan River. Construction of facilities would permanently displace 43 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including 1.1 acres of wetlands. Forty-three acres of private and Navajo Nation land would be converted for project uses, and six families would be displaced. Construction activities would require restriction of Navajo Nation grazing lands. Diversion operations would inevitably lead to fish entrainment, including entrainment of the federally protected flannel mouth sucker and speckled dace. Other special status species potentially affected by the project include Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bluehead sucker, bald eagle, and Southwestern willow flycatcher. In addition, the project would result in the loss of beautiful gilia and Mesa Verde cactus along the pipeline alignment. Many of the estimated 145 cultural resource sites within the footprint of the project could be damaged or displaced, approximately 90 of these sites would require special treatment measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 92-199, Public Law 111-11, and Reclamation Act of 1902. JF - EPA number: 090233, Volume I--560 pages and maps, Volume II--580 pages, Volume III--277 pages, July 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - San Juan River KW - Public Law 92-199, Compliance KW - Public Law 111-11, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. AN - 756826520; 13937-090233_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water supply system are proposed to provide water to the eastern section of the Navajo Nation and the southwestern part of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in Arizona and New Mexico and the city of Gallup, New Mexico The Navajo nation and Gallup rely on a rapidly depleting groundwater supply that is inadequate to meet present needs much less anticipated growth. Other water sources are needed to meet current and future municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would divert water from the San Juan River downstream of Fruitland, New Mexico, just above the existing Public Service Company of New Mexico diversion structure, treat the water to meet drinking water standards, and deliver it along Highway N36 and south to Navajo chapters along U.S. 491. Water would be provided to Window Rock, Arizona and Crownpoint, New Mexico through sublaterals. Water delivery would also be provided to the city of Gallup, New Mexico through the Gallup Regional System. Another diversion would originate at Cutter Reservoir, and existing regulating reservoir on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, and would convey water to the eastern portion of the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache Nations. Cost of facility construction is estimated at $864.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed system would provide a long-term supply of treated M&I water to the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the city of Gallup, serving 250,000 people by the year 2040. Annually, the water supply system would provide 27,193 acre-feet, 1,200 acre-feet, and 7,500 acre-feet, respectively, to the above-mentioned populations. The average flow of the San Juan River would be increased by five cubic feet per second between Navajo Dam and the river diversion, providing additional dilution and, thereby, improving water quality and fish habitat. The project would provide 650 jobs during the construction phase, boosting individual and regional income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove 37,764 acre-feet of water annually from the San Juan River. Construction of facilities would permanently displace 43 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including 1.1 acres of wetlands. Forty-three acres of private and Navajo Nation land would be converted for project uses, and six families would be displaced. Construction activities would require restriction of Navajo Nation grazing lands. Diversion operations would inevitably lead to fish entrainment, including entrainment of the federally protected flannel mouth sucker and speckled dace. Other special status species potentially affected by the project include Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bluehead sucker, bald eagle, and Southwestern willow flycatcher. In addition, the project would result in the loss of beautiful gilia and Mesa Verde cactus along the pipeline alignment. Many of the estimated 145 cultural resource sites within the footprint of the project could be damaged or displaced, approximately 90 of these sites would require special treatment measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 92-199, Public Law 111-11, and Reclamation Act of 1902. JF - EPA number: 090233, Volume I--560 pages and maps, Volume II--580 pages, Volume III--277 pages, July 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - San Juan River KW - Public Law 92-199, Compliance KW - Public Law 111-11, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. AN - 756826509; 13937-090233_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water supply system are proposed to provide water to the eastern section of the Navajo Nation and the southwestern part of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in Arizona and New Mexico and the city of Gallup, New Mexico The Navajo nation and Gallup rely on a rapidly depleting groundwater supply that is inadequate to meet present needs much less anticipated growth. Other water sources are needed to meet current and future municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would divert water from the San Juan River downstream of Fruitland, New Mexico, just above the existing Public Service Company of New Mexico diversion structure, treat the water to meet drinking water standards, and deliver it along Highway N36 and south to Navajo chapters along U.S. 491. Water would be provided to Window Rock, Arizona and Crownpoint, New Mexico through sublaterals. Water delivery would also be provided to the city of Gallup, New Mexico through the Gallup Regional System. Another diversion would originate at Cutter Reservoir, and existing regulating reservoir on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, and would convey water to the eastern portion of the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache Nations. Cost of facility construction is estimated at $864.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed system would provide a long-term supply of treated M&I water to the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the city of Gallup, serving 250,000 people by the year 2040. Annually, the water supply system would provide 27,193 acre-feet, 1,200 acre-feet, and 7,500 acre-feet, respectively, to the above-mentioned populations. The average flow of the San Juan River would be increased by five cubic feet per second between Navajo Dam and the river diversion, providing additional dilution and, thereby, improving water quality and fish habitat. The project would provide 650 jobs during the construction phase, boosting individual and regional income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove 37,764 acre-feet of water annually from the San Juan River. Construction of facilities would permanently displace 43 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including 1.1 acres of wetlands. Forty-three acres of private and Navajo Nation land would be converted for project uses, and six families would be displaced. Construction activities would require restriction of Navajo Nation grazing lands. Diversion operations would inevitably lead to fish entrainment, including entrainment of the federally protected flannel mouth sucker and speckled dace. Other special status species potentially affected by the project include Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bluehead sucker, bald eagle, and Southwestern willow flycatcher. In addition, the project would result in the loss of beautiful gilia and Mesa Verde cactus along the pipeline alignment. Many of the estimated 145 cultural resource sites within the footprint of the project could be damaged or displaced, approximately 90 of these sites would require special treatment measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 92-199, Public Law 111-11, and Reclamation Act of 1902. JF - EPA number: 090233, Volume I--560 pages and maps, Volume II--580 pages, Volume III--277 pages, July 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - San Juan River KW - Public Law 92-199, Compliance KW - Public Law 111-11, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. AN - 756826242; 13937-090233_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water supply system are proposed to provide water to the eastern section of the Navajo Nation and the southwestern part of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in Arizona and New Mexico and the city of Gallup, New Mexico The Navajo nation and Gallup rely on a rapidly depleting groundwater supply that is inadequate to meet present needs much less anticipated growth. Other water sources are needed to meet current and future municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would divert water from the San Juan River downstream of Fruitland, New Mexico, just above the existing Public Service Company of New Mexico diversion structure, treat the water to meet drinking water standards, and deliver it along Highway N36 and south to Navajo chapters along U.S. 491. Water would be provided to Window Rock, Arizona and Crownpoint, New Mexico through sublaterals. Water delivery would also be provided to the city of Gallup, New Mexico through the Gallup Regional System. Another diversion would originate at Cutter Reservoir, and existing regulating reservoir on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, and would convey water to the eastern portion of the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache Nations. Cost of facility construction is estimated at $864.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed system would provide a long-term supply of treated M&I water to the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the city of Gallup, serving 250,000 people by the year 2040. Annually, the water supply system would provide 27,193 acre-feet, 1,200 acre-feet, and 7,500 acre-feet, respectively, to the above-mentioned populations. The average flow of the San Juan River would be increased by five cubic feet per second between Navajo Dam and the river diversion, providing additional dilution and, thereby, improving water quality and fish habitat. The project would provide 650 jobs during the construction phase, boosting individual and regional income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove 37,764 acre-feet of water annually from the San Juan River. Construction of facilities would permanently displace 43 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including 1.1 acres of wetlands. Forty-three acres of private and Navajo Nation land would be converted for project uses, and six families would be displaced. Construction activities would require restriction of Navajo Nation grazing lands. Diversion operations would inevitably lead to fish entrainment, including entrainment of the federally protected flannel mouth sucker and speckled dace. Other special status species potentially affected by the project include Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bluehead sucker, bald eagle, and Southwestern willow flycatcher. In addition, the project would result in the loss of beautiful gilia and Mesa Verde cactus along the pipeline alignment. Many of the estimated 145 cultural resource sites within the footprint of the project could be damaged or displaced, approximately 90 of these sites would require special treatment measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 92-199, Public Law 111-11, and Reclamation Act of 1902. JF - EPA number: 090233, Volume I--560 pages and maps, Volume II--580 pages, Volume III--277 pages, July 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - San Juan River KW - Public Law 92-199, Compliance KW - Public Law 111-11, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVAJO-GALLUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. AN - 36344104; 13937 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a water supply system are proposed to provide water to the eastern section of the Navajo Nation and the southwestern part of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in Arizona and New Mexico and the city of Gallup, New Mexico The Navajo nation and Gallup rely on a rapidly depleting groundwater supply that is inadequate to meet present needs much less anticipated growth. Other water sources are needed to meet current and future municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would divert water from the San Juan River downstream of Fruitland, New Mexico, just above the existing Public Service Company of New Mexico diversion structure, treat the water to meet drinking water standards, and deliver it along Highway N36 and south to Navajo chapters along U.S. 491. Water would be provided to Window Rock, Arizona and Crownpoint, New Mexico through sublaterals. Water delivery would also be provided to the city of Gallup, New Mexico through the Gallup Regional System. Another diversion would originate at Cutter Reservoir, and existing regulating reservoir on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, and would convey water to the eastern portion of the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache Nations. Cost of facility construction is estimated at $864.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed system would provide a long-term supply of treated M&I water to the Navajo Nation, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the city of Gallup, serving 250,000 people by the year 2040. Annually, the water supply system would provide 27,193 acre-feet, 1,200 acre-feet, and 7,500 acre-feet, respectively, to the above-mentioned populations. The average flow of the San Juan River would be increased by five cubic feet per second between Navajo Dam and the river diversion, providing additional dilution and, thereby, improving water quality and fish habitat. The project would provide 650 jobs during the construction phase, boosting individual and regional income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove 37,764 acre-feet of water annually from the San Juan River. Construction of facilities would permanently displace 43 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, including 1.1 acres of wetlands. Forty-three acres of private and Navajo Nation land would be converted for project uses, and six families would be displaced. Construction activities would require restriction of Navajo Nation grazing lands. Diversion operations would inevitably lead to fish entrainment, including entrainment of the federally protected flannel mouth sucker and speckled dace. Other special status species potentially affected by the project include Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bluehead sucker, bald eagle, and Southwestern willow flycatcher. In addition, the project would result in the loss of beautiful gilia and Mesa Verde cactus along the pipeline alignment. Many of the estimated 145 cultural resource sites within the footprint of the project could be damaged or displaced, approximately 90 of these sites would require special treatment measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 92-199, Public Law 111-11, and Reclamation Act of 1902. JF - EPA number: 090233, Volume I--560 pages and maps, Volume II--580 pages, Volume III--277 pages, July 6, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - New Mexico KW - San Juan River KW - Public Law 92-199, Compliance KW - Public Law 111-11, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.title=NAVAJO-GALLUP+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+NEW+MEXICO+AND+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Durango, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2009 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 2 of 2] T2 - BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ADDITION (GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, WILDERNESS STUDY, OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN), COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 756825992; 13933-090229_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition, 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. 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 draft 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 Florida panther, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and major game species. Impacts to archeological 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.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Laws 93-454 and 100-301. JF - EPA number: 090229, 459 pages and maps, July 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-31 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 Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-454, Compliance KW - Public Law 100-301, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+CYPRESS+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+ADDITION+%28GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%29%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=BIG+CYPRESS+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+ADDITION+%28GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%29%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ochopee, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2009 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 2] T2 - BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ADDITION (GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, WILDERNESS STUDY, OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN), COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 756825715; 13933-090229_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition, 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. 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 draft 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 Florida panther, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and major game species. Impacts to archeological 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.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Laws 93-454 and 100-301. JF - EPA number: 090229, 459 pages and maps, July 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-31 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 Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-454, Compliance KW - Public Law 100-301, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+CYPRESS+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+ADDITION+%28GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%29%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=BIG+CYPRESS+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+ADDITION+%28GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%29%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ochopee, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2009 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. AN - 36347170; 13933 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition, 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. 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 draft 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 Florida panther, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and major game species. Impacts to archeological 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.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Laws 93-454 and 100-301. JF - EPA number: 090229, 459 pages and maps, July 2, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-31 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 Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 93-454, Compliance KW - Public Law 100-301, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+CYPRESS+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+ADDITION+%28GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%29%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=BIG+CYPRESS+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+ADDITION+%28GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WILDERNESS+STUDY%2C+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%29%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ochopee, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125539; 13936-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125537; 13936-2_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125534; 13936-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125533; 13936-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125529; 13936-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125527; 13936-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125526; 13936-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125522; 13936-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125521; 13936-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125519; 13936-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125513; 13936-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125248; 13936-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125242; 13936-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125237; 13936-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Christine&rft.date=1992-01-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=33&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=English+for+Specific+Purposes&rft.issn=08894906&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125181; 13936-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125181?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=33&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=English+for+Specific+Purposes&rft.issn=08894906&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125178; 13936-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125175; 13936-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125171; 13936-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125170; 13936-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125167; 13936-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125159; 13936-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 24] T2 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125157; 13936-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS HORSESHOE GRANDE FEE-TO-TRUST PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36353095; 13936 AB - PURPOSE: The conveyance of the 535-acre Horseshoe Grande property, located in western Riverside County, California, to federal trust status is proposed by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Tribe). The tribally-owned property is contiguous to the boundaries of the existing Soboba Indian Reservation. The Tribe also proposes to develop 55 acres of the project site into a destination hotel and casino complex. The Tribe would relocate its existing casino, which presently resides on trust lands, to the project site. In addition to the fee-to-trust action and casino relocation, the proposed action would include development of a 300-room hotel, casino, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events arena, and a spa and fitness center, within a 729,500 square-foot complex. Proposed developments would also include two tribal fire stations, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store. Due to fault lines in the area, the realignment of Lake Park Drive is recommended to accommodate the proposed developments on available buildable land. Proposed Action A and Proposed Action B are variants of the proposed development, with and without the realignment of Lake Park Drive, respectively. In addition to the proposed actions, four alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 4), are assessed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would reduce the size of the proposed hotel and casino complex by 20 percent. Alternative 2 would include the 300-room hotel with convention center, but the casino would not be relocated and Lake Park Drive would not be realigned. Alternative 3 would include development of a recreational vehicle park and a community shopping center near the intersection of Soboba Road and Lake Park Drive, but no casino or hotel. Indirect and induced economic output of operations under Proposed Action A is estimated at $118.5 million and 2,600 jobs in Riverside County would be supported. The decrease in property taxes would be $235,000 per year, but annual sales tax receipts to state and local governments would increase to a combined total of $1.15 million and annual state and federal income tax payments would increase to $1.98 million and $7.92 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would return ancestral territory to the Tribe so that it may exercise sovereignty over tribal lands and be relieved of state and local taxation. It would create a sizable source of employment for tribal members and local communities and the tribe would continue to provide revenues generated from its gaming enterprise to local social, cultural, and educational programs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under all the development alternatives, seismic events associated with the San Jacinto fault system or the nearby San Andreas and Elsinore faults would pose potentially significant risk of seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides, and structural damage. Potential effects from surface water runoff could occur with problems of drainage, flooding, and water rights. Air quality impacts from construction of the proposed developments would include diesel fuel combustion emissions and dust generated by land disturbance. Structures resulting from the proposed action would contrast much of the present background scenery, obstructing the view of a variety of visual resources from different observation points. Development would be likely to affect a number of intersections in the local transportation network and would result in unacceptable levels of service during the peak travel hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090232, Draft EIS--588 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOBOBA+BAND+OF+LUISENO+INDIANS+HORSESHOE+GRANDE+FEE-TO-TRUST+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO, CITY OF RICHMOND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344779; 13935 AB - PURPOSE: The taking of 266 acres of the former Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate into federal trust for the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Rancheria (Tribe) and approval of a gaming management contract in the city of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California are proposed. The Tribe and Upstream Point Molate LLC propose to construct new facilities and improve existing facilities to develop a mixed-use tribal destination resort and casino. The proposed project site is located just north of the San Rafael Bridge along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay and is approximately one mile north of Interstate 580, with direct freeway access through Western Drive. A 1,200-foot pier that extends into the bay from the central point of the site would be used as a commuter ferry terminal for workers and visitors to the site. Key issues identified during scoping include those relating to erosion, water quality, air quality, archeological sites, the Winehaven historic district, the social impact of gambling, economic impacts, availability of housing, transportation, land use, public services, crime, noise, hazardous materials, and impacts to visual resources including potential light pollution. Six alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative F), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would include construction of a destination resort including two hotels totaling 1,075 rooms, 170,000 square feet of business, conference, and entertainment facilities, a 240,000 square foot casino, 54 luxury accommodation cottages and casitas, a 300,000 square foot retail shopping center, public plazas, pedestrian/bicycle trails, shoreline parks, a tribal park, tribal government offices and cultural facilities, restoration of 34 historic buildings, and transportation facilities. Alternative B differs from Alternative A in that a 35-acre residential neighborhood would be constructed on the southwestern portion of the project site which would not be taken into trust. The parcel would be developed with 340 housing units, a portion of which would be available for the Tribe. Alternative C would construct a reduced intensity mixed-use destination resort and casino with one hotel and increased open space and parkland. Under Alternative D, none of the land would be taken into trust and the project site would be developed by the Tribe and Upstream with commercial mixed-use and market rate housing for sale or lease. Under Alternative E, the land would be retained by the city and made accessible for use as a park. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would restore the Guidiville tribal land base and would enable the tribe to provide governmental services and perform governmental functions, create jobs and career opportunities for tribal members, improve the tribal economy and tribal housing, and develop programs that would assist tribal members to attain economic self-sufficiency. The proposed action would also serve to meet the City of Richmonds requirements under the Base Closure Act to use a closed navy fuel depot for economic development purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed development could result in significant soil erosion while unstable soil could cause settlement of buildings or landslides and the risk of strong seismic activity could expose people or structures to adverse effects. Construction would likely result in pollution of stormwater runoff and significant emissions with cumulative impact. Development could impact nesting and migratory birds as well as bats. Construction of Alternative A would result in demolition of a contributing element of the Winehaven historic district. Alternative A would have the potential for release of hazardous materials, adverse effect on scenic vistas, and cumulative impact on traffic volume in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090231, Volume 1 Draft EIS--850 pages and maps, Volumes 2 and 3, Appendices--CD-ROM only, July 1, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Emissions KW - Erosion KW - Ferries KW - Health Hazards KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Housing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Resorts KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POINT+MOLATE+MIXED-USE+TRIBAL+DESTINATION+RESORT+AND+CASINO%2C+CITY+OF+RICHMOND%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=POINT+MOLATE+MIXED-USE+TRIBAL+DESTINATION+RESORT+AND+CASINO%2C+CITY+OF+RICHMOND%2C+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 873125569; 13914-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a Blanket Certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, four meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, five new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations are considered in this draft EIS. Route alternatives have origin and delivery points generally the same as the corresponding portion of the proposed pipeline but would follow different routes in order to avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources, often by collocating within the same rights-of-way as existing or new pipeline systems. Of the route alternatives evaluated, the Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) alternatives are recommended alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 105 faults or fault zones and across three areas with moderate to high susceptibility to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,132 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies within 10 watershed basins. Thirteen federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 14.4 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 12,600 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 24,934 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Operation of the pipeline would require 4,268 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090210, 908 pages, June 18, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232D KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36350791; 13913 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of six maintenance leases, via competitive sealed-bid sale by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for mining of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines, Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. All are operating surface coal mines in the southern Powder River Basin near the town of Wright. These maintenance coal tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field Lease by Application (LBA), the South Hilight Field LBA, the West Hilight Field LBA, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, the North Porcupine LBA, and the South Porcupine LBA. As applied for by Ark Land Company, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company, and BTU Western Resources, Inc., the Wright Area Coal LBA tracts include 18,022 acres containing 2.6 billion tons of federal coal. Concerns related to leasing coal and its subsequent development identified during analyses and scoping include: impacts to groundwater, air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, socioeconomics and transportation routes; coal loss during rail transport; conflicts with oil and gas development; cumulative impacts of ongoing surface mining; greenhouse gas emissions; ozone; and climate change. In addition to the proposed action, three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the LBA tracts would not be leased, but existing leases at the adjacent mines would be developed according to existing approved mining plans. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, each of the six LBA tracts would be reconfigured by BLM in order to provide more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest, and reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal would be bypassed in the future. Only the West Hilight Field LBA tract would be reconfigured under Alternative 3. In the event a lease is issued for an LBA tract, stipulations would be attached stating that no mining activity can be conducted in portions of the lease within public road or railroad rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones unless authorized local authorities determine that the roads could be abandoned or relocated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 could add up to 7.8 years to the remaining life of the Black Thunder mine, up to 28.6 years to the remaining life of the Jacobs Ranch mine, and up to 8.2 years to the remaining life of the North Antelope Rochelle mine depending on potential road relocations and recovery of underlying coal. Up to 155 new employees could be added at the Jacobs Ranch mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden above the coal within the Wright area LBA tracts. Access to 12,481 acres of federal grazing leases on Thunder Basin National Grassland surface would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations on five LBA tracts. Public exposure to emissions from surface mining operations could occur along roads and highways that pass through the areas of operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090209, Draft EIS Volume 1---383 pages, Volume 2 and Appendices---420 pages, June 18, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-30 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coal KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Thunder Basin National Grassland KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON. AN - 36345341; 13914 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon is proposed. The applicant, Ruby Pipeline, LLC is also seeking a Blanket Certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain eligible facilities and services. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade and the project would provide infrastructure to connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are expected to decrease. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to pipeline location, easements, mining operations, soil erosion, water resources, endangered species, potential effects on public services, air quality and noise, and safety. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction of 675 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline, 2.6 miles of lateral pipeline, one electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas-powered compressor stations totaling 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression, four meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, five new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of natural gas. Ruby would use 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, a Postponed Action Alternative, 14 route alternatives and 15 minor route variations are considered in this draft EIS. Route alternatives have origin and delivery points generally the same as the corresponding portion of the proposed pipeline but would follow different routes in order to avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources, often by collocating within the same rights-of-way as existing or new pipeline systems. Of the route alternatives evaluated, the Terrace Basin (milepost range 189.8 to 209.7), Willow Creek (milepost range 349.2 to 410.6), and Southern Langell Valley (milepost range 643.2 to 672.6) alternatives are recommended alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada and Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would be constructed across 105 faults or fault zones and across three areas with moderate to high susceptibility to soil liquefaction. The project would cross 1,132 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies within 10 watershed basins. Thirteen federally listed species could be affected. Water depletions from the Colorado River would affect four fish species. Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 14.4 million gallons of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. More than 12,600 acres of sagebrush habitat would be disturbed with potential impact on the greater sage-grouse. Impacts on raptors and other migratory birds could occur. Construction would disturb a total of 24,934 acres of land including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. Operation of the pipeline would require 4,268 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090210, 908 pages, June 18, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232D KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Waste Management KW - Wetlands KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-06-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 30 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126553; 13891-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 29 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126548; 13891-0_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 28 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126542; 13891-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 22 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126532; 13891-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 23 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126365; 13891-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 34 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126341; 13891-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 33 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126335; 13891-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 32 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126331; 13891-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 31 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126320; 13891-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 27 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126317; 13891-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 26 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126312; 13891-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 25 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126310; 13891-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 24 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126305; 13891-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873126305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 19 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125603; 13891-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 18 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125600; 13891-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 17 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125598; 13891-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 16 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125594; 13891-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 13 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125589; 13891-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 12 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125584; 13891-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125584?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125582; 13891-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125580; 13891-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 11 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125575; 13891-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 10 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125573; 13891-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 21 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125480; 13891-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 15 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125363; 13891-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 14 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125353; 13891-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 6 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125319; 13891-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125314; 13891-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125309; 13891-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125304; 13891-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 20 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125294; 13891-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 9 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125208; 13891-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 8 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125200; 13891-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 7 of 34] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 873125187; 13891-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin and passing through Minnesota and North Dakota. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 673 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 326.9 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This final EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, existing and proposed system alternatives, major pipeline route alternatives, route variation alternatives, aboveground facility siting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. The Alberta Clipper Project, as proposed, is the environmentally preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated shipper interest in an overall Enbridge system expansion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,528 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 80 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 123 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,347 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 820 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,528 acres of farmland, 617 acres of developed lands, 655 acres of open lands, and 1,346 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 622 acres of forested lands, 569 acres of farmland, 37 acres of developed land, 195 acres of open land, and 821 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0021D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090180, Final EIS--551 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, May 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/873125187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH SAN PABLO BAY RESTORATION AND REUSE PROJECT (NORTH BAY WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM), MARIN, SONOMA, AND NAPA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344892; 13889 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the North San Pablo Bay Restoration and Reuse Project, also referred to as the North Bay Water Recycling Program (NBWRP), within Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties, California is proposed. The member agencies of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA), including Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (SD), Novato SD, Sonoma Valley County SD, Napa SD, and Sonoma County Water District, undertook cooperative planning efforts over a five-year period to define shared objectives and develop feasible alternatives toward definition of a region-wide water reclamation and reuse project. The action area encompasses 318 square miles and extends 10 to 15 miles inland of San Pablo Bay, with a total population of over 270,000. The region supports agriculture, including wine-grape growing, as well as light industry, commercial uses, parklands, and residential areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the proposed end uses of recycled water, beneficial offset, integration of conservation measures, regional distribution of recycled water, cost and benefit, water quality, effects on agriculture uses, and growth inducement. A No Project Alternative, a No Action Alternative, and three Action Alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The Action Alternatives represent a range of recycled water reuse and regional facility integration. Alternative 1 (Basic System) would include use of recycled water near each of the individual wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and would provide 83 miles of new pipeline, 2,158 horsepower of pumping capacity, treatment facilities providing 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of tertiary capacity, and 1,020 acre-feet (AF) of storage. Alternative 2 (Partially Connected System) would add 139 miles of new pipeline, 3,454 HP of pumping capacity, facilities providing 15.9 mgd of tertiary capacity, and 2,220 AF of storage to partially connect the existing WWTPs. Alternative 3 (Fully Connected System), which would provide a fully integrated and regional recycled water distribution system connecting all four member agency WWTPs, would add 153 miles of pipeline, 5,021 HP of pumping capacity, facilities providing 20.8 mgd of tertiary capacity, and 2,220 AF of storage. Under each alternative treatment and storage capacity would be constructed within or along public roadways within Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties. NRWRA member agencies have collectively prioritized projects within their individual service areas to establish an implementation plan identifying the order in which projects would be constructed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The NBWRP would offset urban and agricultural demands on potable water supplies, enhance local and regional ecosystems, improve local and regional water supply reliability, maintain and protect public health and safety, promote sustainable practices, prioritize local needs for recycled water, and implement recycled water facilities in an economically viable manner. NBWRP would provide an alternative irrigation supply to existing groundwater pumping and the offset could maintain or raise groundwater levels in portions of the project area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could generate erosion-related water quality impacts and impacts to wetlands and riparian habitats. The proposed facilities would be subject to disruption by seismic activity. Unstable and expansive soils could cause damage to structures and service disruptions. New impervious surfaces for NBWRP would result in an increase in storm runoff. Irrigation with recycled water could contribute to nutrient and other pollutant loadings in groundwater. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992. JF - EPA number: 090178, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--397 pages and maps, Draft EIS (Volume 2)--371 pages, May 28, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Earthquakes KW - Erosion KW - Farm Management KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Recycling KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Urban Development KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Conservation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - California KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+SAN+PABLO+BAY+RESTORATION+AND+REUSE+PROJECT+%28NORTH+BAY+WATER+RECYCLING+PROGRAM%29%2C+MARIN%2C+SONOMA%2C+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+SAN+PABLO+BAY+RESTORATION+AND+REUSE+PROJECT+%28NORTH+BAY+WATER+RECYCLING+PROGRAM%29%2C+MARIN%2C+SONOMA%2C+AND+NAPA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. AN - 756827256; 14512-090167_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements for Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport near Sitka, Alaska is proposed. Sitka is located on the west coast of Baranof Island fronting the Pacific Ocean on Sitka Sound, 95 miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The airport lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the central business district. The city is accessible only by air and sea. In addition to functioning as the city's only municipal airport, the facility, which was constructed in 1960, supports U.S. Coast Guard air station and other facilities on nearby Japonski Island. Under the federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the airport is classified as a primary non-hub commercial service airport. The facility features one 6,500-foot-long, 150-foot-wide runway (Runway 11/29) and a partial taxiway. Two taxiways and connectors provide the partial taxiway system, and the facility also features a terminal facility, and general aviation facilities. The major actions proposed under the improvement project would include improvements to runway safety areas, construction of a full-length parallel taxiway, relocation of the seaplane pullout from west of the runway, installation of an approach lighting system, repair and improvement of the airport seawall, and acquisition of additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This final EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). For the runway safety area, Alternative 5 is preferred and would add a 280-foot landmass expansion on the end of Runway 29. Alternative 3 is preferred for the parallel taxiway and would add a partial extension to Charcoal Island. Construction of a fixed ramp (Alternative 2) on Charcoal Island is preferred for the seaplane pullout. The No Action Alternative is preferred for both the approach lighting system, and repair and improvement of the airport seawall. Regarding land acquisition, Alternative 2, acquisition of property rights sufficient to protect land for current and future aviation and airport uses, is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide runway safety areas that meet federal guidance; reduce the potential for runway incursions and thereby improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations; improve the ability of aircraft to land and/or takeoff during inclement weather; maintain the structural integrity of the runway and prevent closure of the runway resulting from wave overtopping and associated storm debris; obtain property rights sufficient to provide lands for current and future aviation uses. The increased capacity and availability of the airport in nearly all weathers would provide a significant economic boost to island inhabitants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the runway safety expansion would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the ocean and construction of the taxiway would require placement of 511,000 cubic yards of fill into the airport lagoon. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 1.93 acres of open water and benthic habitat due to rock placement. Bird habitat would be fragmented by taxiway facilities. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous military wastes on the sea floor. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0367D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090167, Final EIS--918 pages, Appendices--1,981 pages, May 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Alaska KW - Baranof Island KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. AN - 756827251; 14512-090167_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements for Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport near Sitka, Alaska is proposed. Sitka is located on the west coast of Baranof Island fronting the Pacific Ocean on Sitka Sound, 95 miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The airport lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the central business district. The city is accessible only by air and sea. In addition to functioning as the city's only municipal airport, the facility, which was constructed in 1960, supports U.S. Coast Guard air station and other facilities on nearby Japonski Island. Under the federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the airport is classified as a primary non-hub commercial service airport. The facility features one 6,500-foot-long, 150-foot-wide runway (Runway 11/29) and a partial taxiway. Two taxiways and connectors provide the partial taxiway system, and the facility also features a terminal facility, and general aviation facilities. The major actions proposed under the improvement project would include improvements to runway safety areas, construction of a full-length parallel taxiway, relocation of the seaplane pullout from west of the runway, installation of an approach lighting system, repair and improvement of the airport seawall, and acquisition of additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This final EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). For the runway safety area, Alternative 5 is preferred and would add a 280-foot landmass expansion on the end of Runway 29. Alternative 3 is preferred for the parallel taxiway and would add a partial extension to Charcoal Island. Construction of a fixed ramp (Alternative 2) on Charcoal Island is preferred for the seaplane pullout. The No Action Alternative is preferred for both the approach lighting system, and repair and improvement of the airport seawall. Regarding land acquisition, Alternative 2, acquisition of property rights sufficient to protect land for current and future aviation and airport uses, is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide runway safety areas that meet federal guidance; reduce the potential for runway incursions and thereby improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations; improve the ability of aircraft to land and/or takeoff during inclement weather; maintain the structural integrity of the runway and prevent closure of the runway resulting from wave overtopping and associated storm debris; obtain property rights sufficient to provide lands for current and future aviation uses. The increased capacity and availability of the airport in nearly all weathers would provide a significant economic boost to island inhabitants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the runway safety expansion would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the ocean and construction of the taxiway would require placement of 511,000 cubic yards of fill into the airport lagoon. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 1.93 acres of open water and benthic habitat due to rock placement. Bird habitat would be fragmented by taxiway facilities. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous military wastes on the sea floor. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0367D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090167, Final EIS--918 pages, Appendices--1,981 pages, May 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Alaska KW - Baranof Island KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. AN - 756827239; 14512-090167_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements for Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport near Sitka, Alaska is proposed. Sitka is located on the west coast of Baranof Island fronting the Pacific Ocean on Sitka Sound, 95 miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The airport lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the central business district. The city is accessible only by air and sea. In addition to functioning as the city's only municipal airport, the facility, which was constructed in 1960, supports U.S. Coast Guard air station and other facilities on nearby Japonski Island. Under the federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the airport is classified as a primary non-hub commercial service airport. The facility features one 6,500-foot-long, 150-foot-wide runway (Runway 11/29) and a partial taxiway. Two taxiways and connectors provide the partial taxiway system, and the facility also features a terminal facility, and general aviation facilities. The major actions proposed under the improvement project would include improvements to runway safety areas, construction of a full-length parallel taxiway, relocation of the seaplane pullout from west of the runway, installation of an approach lighting system, repair and improvement of the airport seawall, and acquisition of additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This final EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). For the runway safety area, Alternative 5 is preferred and would add a 280-foot landmass expansion on the end of Runway 29. Alternative 3 is preferred for the parallel taxiway and would add a partial extension to Charcoal Island. Construction of a fixed ramp (Alternative 2) on Charcoal Island is preferred for the seaplane pullout. The No Action Alternative is preferred for both the approach lighting system, and repair and improvement of the airport seawall. Regarding land acquisition, Alternative 2, acquisition of property rights sufficient to protect land for current and future aviation and airport uses, is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide runway safety areas that meet federal guidance; reduce the potential for runway incursions and thereby improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations; improve the ability of aircraft to land and/or takeoff during inclement weather; maintain the structural integrity of the runway and prevent closure of the runway resulting from wave overtopping and associated storm debris; obtain property rights sufficient to provide lands for current and future aviation uses. The increased capacity and availability of the airport in nearly all weathers would provide a significant economic boost to island inhabitants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the runway safety expansion would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the ocean and construction of the taxiway would require placement of 511,000 cubic yards of fill into the airport lagoon. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 1.93 acres of open water and benthic habitat due to rock placement. Bird habitat would be fragmented by taxiway facilities. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous military wastes on the sea floor. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0367D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090167, Final EIS--918 pages, Appendices--1,981 pages, May 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Alaska KW - Baranof Island KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. AN - 754907403; 14512 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements for Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport near Sitka, Alaska is proposed. Sitka is located on the west coast of Baranof Island fronting the Pacific Ocean on Sitka Sound, 95 miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The airport lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the central business district. The city is accessible only by air and sea. In addition to functioning as the city's only municipal airport, the facility, which was constructed in 1960, supports U.S. Coast Guard air station and other facilities on nearby Japonski Island. Under the federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the airport is classified as a primary non-hub commercial service airport. The facility features one 6,500-foot-long, 150-foot-wide runway (Runway 11/29) and a partial taxiway. Two taxiways and connectors provide the partial taxiway system, and the facility also features a terminal facility, and general aviation facilities. The major actions proposed under the improvement project would include improvements to runway safety areas, construction of a full-length parallel taxiway, relocation of the seaplane pullout from west of the runway, installation of an approach lighting system, repair and improvement of the airport seawall, and acquisition of additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This final EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). For the runway safety area, Alternative 5 is preferred and would add a 280-foot landmass expansion on the end of Runway 29. Alternative 3 is preferred for the parallel taxiway and would add a partial extension to Charcoal Island. Construction of a fixed ramp (Alternative 2) on Charcoal Island is preferred for the seaplane pullout. The No Action Alternative is preferred for both the approach lighting system, and repair and improvement of the airport seawall. Regarding land acquisition, Alternative 2, acquisition of property rights sufficient to protect land for current and future aviation and airport uses, is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide runway safety areas that meet federal guidance; reduce the potential for runway incursions and thereby improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations; improve the ability of aircraft to land and/or takeoff during inclement weather; maintain the structural integrity of the runway and prevent closure of the runway resulting from wave overtopping and associated storm debris; obtain property rights sufficient to provide lands for current and future aviation uses. The increased capacity and availability of the airport in nearly all weathers would provide a significant economic boost to island inhabitants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the runway safety expansion would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the ocean and construction of the taxiway would require placement of 511,000 cubic yards of fill into the airport lagoon. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 1.93 acres of open water and benthic habitat due to rock placement. Bird habitat would be fragmented by taxiway facilities. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous military wastes on the sea floor. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0367D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090167, Final EIS--918 pages, Appendices--1,981 pages, May 19, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Alaska KW - Baranof Island KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BROADWATER, DEER LODGE, GALLATIN, JEFFERSON, LEWIS AND CLARK, SILVER BOW, PARK, AND BEAVERHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BROADWATER, DEER LODGE, GALLATIN, JEFFERSON, LEWIS AND CLARK, SILVER BOW, PARK, AND BEAVERHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825199; 13859-080366_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan for the 8.5-million-acre Butte Resource Management Area (RMA) in southwestern Montana is proposed. The RMA lies in Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Park, Silver Bow, and Beaverhead counties. The affected lands are currently being managed under the Headwaters Resource Management Plan of 1984 and the Dillion Resource Management Plan for 1979. Since these plans were set into place, RMA conditions and exploitative and nonexploitative uses have changed significantly. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, special status and priority plant and animal species, travel management and access, recreation, and special area designations, including areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2008. This record of decision approves the resource management plan as proposed under the preferred alternative (Alternative B). The preferred alternative would emphasize moderate levels of resource protection, use, and restoration. Quantities of forest-based commodity resources from vegetation restoration activities would be similar to those under the current management regime. Project-level wildlife habitat and riparian management measures would be intensified. Alternative B would emphasize a balance of motorized and non-motorized recreation and access opportunities. Two rivers would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Oil and gas lease management activities would be heightened. Alternative C would emphasize a lesser degree of vegetative restoration and forest resource production than any of the other alternatives to provide maximum protection to wildlife habitat and riparian areas. Alternative C would focus more on non-motorized recreation than the other alternatives. All potential ACECs would be designated as such, and all four river segments under consideration for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers would be recommended for inclusion. Alternative C would provide for the most extensive oil and gas leasing management measures. Alternative D would emphasize the greatest degree of active management to restore vegetative communities and would produce the greatest quantity of forest products from vegetation restoration activities. Fewer wildlife habitat and riparian area management measures would be implemented. The alternative would emphasize motorized access and recreation opportunities. No river segments would be proposed for wild and scenic river status. Alternative D would have the fewest oil and gas leasing management measures of all the alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a mix and variety of management actions and allocations that would best resolve the issues and management concerns outlined above. Alternative B would improve and protect grassland and shrubland, forested lands, riparian areas, big horn sheep habitat, big game areas, fish habitat, special areas. Noxious weed cover and wildland fire risk would be reduced significantly. Travel and recreation resources management would provide for appropriate access while protecting sensitive natural resources. Wilderness and wild and scenic rivers management would protect these sensitive and invaluable resources for present and future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire, would displace wildlife, degrade the quality and decrease the quantity of forage, and reduce non-target ecosystem components. Changes in recreational visitation and patterns of use could result in increased conflicts between users, vandalism, and illegal collection of cultural resources. Development of mineral resources and other exploitative uses would create visual intrusions in scenic areas, soil erosion and compaction, and loss of vegetative cover. Accidental introduction of exotic plant or animal species could result in imbalances in the ecosystem and displacement of native animals and plants. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0216D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080366, Record of Decision--232 pages, May 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Butte Resource Management Area KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BROADWATER%2C+DEER+LODGE%2C+GALLATIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+SILVER+BOW%2C+PARK%2C+AND+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BROADWATER%2C+DEER+LODGE%2C+GALLATIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+SILVER+BOW%2C+PARK%2C+AND+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BROADWATER, DEER LODGE, GALLATIN, JEFFERSON, LEWIS AND CLARK, SILVER BOW, PARK, AND BEAVERHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36346705; 13859 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan for the 8.5-million-acre Butte Resource Management Area (RMA) in southwestern Montana is proposed. The RMA lies in Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Park, Silver Bow, and Beaverhead counties. The affected lands are currently being managed under the Headwaters Resource Management Plan of 1984 and the Dillion Resource Management Plan for 1979. Since these plans were set into place, RMA conditions and exploitative and nonexploitative uses have changed significantly. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, special status and priority plant and animal species, travel management and access, recreation, and special area designations, including areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the final EIS of September 2008. This record of decision approves the resource management plan as proposed under the preferred alternative (Alternative B). The preferred alternative would emphasize moderate levels of resource protection, use, and restoration. Quantities of forest-based commodity resources from vegetation restoration activities would be similar to those under the current management regime. Project-level wildlife habitat and riparian management measures would be intensified. Alternative B would emphasize a balance of motorized and non-motorized recreation and access opportunities. Two rivers would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Oil and gas lease management activities would be heightened. Alternative C would emphasize a lesser degree of vegetative restoration and forest resource production than any of the other alternatives to provide maximum protection to wildlife habitat and riparian areas. Alternative C would focus more on non-motorized recreation than the other alternatives. All potential ACECs would be designated as such, and all four river segments under consideration for inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers would be recommended for inclusion. Alternative C would provide for the most extensive oil and gas leasing management measures. Alternative D would emphasize the greatest degree of active management to restore vegetative communities and would produce the greatest quantity of forest products from vegetation restoration activities. Fewer wildlife habitat and riparian area management measures would be implemented. The alternative would emphasize motorized access and recreation opportunities. No river segments would be proposed for wild and scenic river status. Alternative D would have the fewest oil and gas leasing management measures of all the alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a mix and variety of management actions and allocations that would best resolve the issues and management concerns outlined above. Alternative B would improve and protect grassland and shrubland, forested lands, riparian areas, big horn sheep habitat, big game areas, fish habitat, special areas. Noxious weed cover and wildland fire risk would be reduced significantly. Travel and recreation resources management would provide for appropriate access while protecting sensitive natural resources. Wilderness and wild and scenic rivers management would protect these sensitive and invaluable resources for present and future generations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire, would displace wildlife, degrade the quality and decrease the quantity of forage, and reduce non-target ecosystem components. Changes in recreational visitation and patterns of use could result in increased conflicts between users, vandalism, and illegal collection of cultural resources. Development of mineral resources and other exploitative uses would create visual intrusions in scenic areas, soil erosion and compaction, and loss of vegetative cover. Accidental introduction of exotic plant or animal species could result in imbalances in the ecosystem and displacement of native animals and plants. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0216D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080366, Record of Decision--232 pages, May 13, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Butte Resource Management Area KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BROADWATER%2C+DEER+LODGE%2C+GALLATIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+SILVER+BOW%2C+PARK%2C+AND+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=BUTTE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BROADWATER%2C+DEER+LODGE%2C+GALLATIN%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+LEWIS+AND+CLARK%2C+SILVER+BOW%2C+PARK%2C+AND+BEAVERHEAD+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 59 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127830; 13879-5_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 59 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 58 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127822; 13879-5_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 58 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 57 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127813; 13879-5_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 57 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 56 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127803; 13879-5_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 56 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 55 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127791; 13879-5_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 55 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 50 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127778; 13879-5_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 50 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 45 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127773; 13879-5_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 45 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 49 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127765; 13879-5_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 49 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 54 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127718; 13879-5_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 54 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 53 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127709; 13879-5_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 53 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 52 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127703; 13879-5_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 52 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 51 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127694; 13879-5_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 51 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 38 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127154; 13879-5_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 38 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 36 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127140; 13879-5_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 36 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 35 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127134; 13879-5_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 35 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 44 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127086; 13879-5_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 44 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 43 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127072; 13879-5_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 43 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 23 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127056; 13879-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 46 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127049; 13879-5_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 46 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 22 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127043; 13879-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 34 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127042; 13879-5_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 34 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 33 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127036; 13879-5_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 33 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127030; 13879-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 32 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127025; 13879-5_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 32 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 20 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873127011; 13879-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 47 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126966; 13879-5_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 47 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 42 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126951; 13879-5_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 42 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 41 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126939; 13879-5_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 41 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 39 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126919; 13879-5_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 39 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 30 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126865; 13879-5_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 30 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 29 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126862; 13879-5_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 29 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 28 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126857; 13879-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 28 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 27 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126853; 13879-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 25 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126841; 13879-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 25 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 24 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126838; 13879-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 67 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126807; 13879-5_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 67 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 62 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126799; 13879-5_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 62 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 65 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126587; 13879-5_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 65 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 64 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126582; 13879-5_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 64 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 63 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126564; 13879-5_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 63 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126325; 13879-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126316; 13879-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126309; 13879-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126307; 13879-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126302; 13879-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126300; 13879-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126291; 13879-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126284; 13879-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126282; 13879-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126267; 13879-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126251; 13879-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126238; 13879-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126140; 13879-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126127; 13879-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126107; 13879-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 67] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126097; 13879-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 36344536; 13879 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation (the Nation) of New York is proposed. The property is comprised of seven separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Towns of Springport and Montezuma in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations (a gas station and convenience store), and LakeSide Entertainment (the gaming operation). The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 120 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise parcels in Montezuma and Springport would not be taken into Federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local, county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090155, Draft EIS--327 pages and CD-ROM, and Appendices--CD-ROM only, May 12, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Gay+%26+Lesbian+Psychotherapy&rft.atitle=Biologic+Theories+of+Homosexuality&rft.au=Pillard%2C+Richard+C&rft.aulast=Pillard&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=1998-12-31&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=75&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Gay+%26+Lesbian+Psychotherapy&rft.issn=08917140&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUSKEGEE AIRMEN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, TUSKEGEE, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUSKEGEE AIRMEN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, TUSKEGEE, ALABAMA. AN - 756826222; 13878-090154_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The first general management plan for the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site, Tuskegee, Alabama is proposed. The 90-acre site is located in Macon County approximately 2 miles north of Tuskegee and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998 to celebrate and interpret the role of the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II and the beginning of African-American participation in U.S. military aviation. The program started by the U.S. Army Air Corps in Tuskegee, Alabama in 1941 was known as the Tuskegee Experiment, and by the program's end in 1948, more than 10,000 African-Americans had received flight training conducted by personnel from Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) at Moton Field. Nine of the original 15 historic structures remain at the site including Hangar 1, the Skyway Club, the control tower, the bath and locker house, various storage sheds, and the entrance gate. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the historic integrity of the site, visitor access, interpretive and recreational opportunities, and administration and maintenance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. In addition to the management alternatives, five management zones were developed to describe desired conditions for park resources and visitor experiences in different areas of the site: the historic 1945 zone, visitor orientation zone, administration zone, recreation zone, and nature discovery zone. The four action alternatives present different ways to manage resources, provide for visitor use and enjoyment, and improve facilities and infrastructure over the next 15 to 20 years. The preferred management alternative (Alternative D) would offer the most diversity of visitor interpretive programs and recreational opportunities and is the only alternative that would contain all five management zones. Under the preferred alternative, no new facilities would be added within the core historic area and the nature discovery zone would encompass one-third of the site. The visitor orientation zone would encompass the parking area, the Tuskegee Airmen National Center (TANC), Airmen Memorial, picnic area, overlook, visitor contact station, and a small parcel currently owned by Tuskegee University. Administration zones would be provided in two areas and the recreation zone would encompass areas in the southeastern portion of the site. Visitor services and facilities could include up to 5,000 feet of natural trails, 1,000 feet of hardened trails, 15 additional wayside exhibits, three kiosks, and a small group program area. An additional four maintenance and two interpretive staff would be needed to support the actions associated with the preferred alternative. Total estimated one-time facilities costs in 2007 dollars for implementation of the preferred alternative are $10.8 million, but costs for the TANC, the Airmen Memorial, any future collections facilities, and real estate costs for city and university-owned properties are not included. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the general management plan would confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site and provide long-term perspective for planning and decision-making with regard to visitor experience and resource protection issues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local air quality would be affected by construction-related activities. Minor impacts on the natural soundscape would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090154, 282 pages, May 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 09-26 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Universities KW - Alabama KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Gay+%26+Lesbian+Psychotherapy&rft.atitle=Biologic+Theories+of+Homosexuality&rft.au=Pillard%2C+Richard+C&rft.aulast=Pillard&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=1998-12-31&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=75&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Gay+%26+Lesbian+Psychotherapy&rft.issn=08917140&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, TUSKEGEE AIRMEN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, TUSKEGEE, ALABAMA. AN - 36346148; 13878 AB - PURPOSE: The first general management plan for the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site, Tuskegee, Alabama is proposed. The 90-acre site is located in Macon County approximately 2 miles north of Tuskegee and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998 to celebrate and interpret the role of the Tuskegee Airmen during World War II and the beginning of African-American participation in U.S. military aviation. The program started by the U.S. Army Air Corps in Tuskegee, Alabama in 1941 was known as the Tuskegee Experiment, and by the program's end in 1948, more than 10,000 African-Americans had received flight training conducted by personnel from Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) at Moton Field. Nine of the original 15 historic structures remain at the site including Hangar 1, the Skyway Club, the control tower, the bath and locker house, various storage sheds, and the entrance gate. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the historic integrity of the site, visitor access, interpretive and recreational opportunities, and administration and maintenance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. In addition to the management alternatives, five management zones were developed to describe desired conditions for park resources and visitor experiences in different areas of the site: the historic 1945 zone, visitor orientation zone, administration zone, recreation zone, and nature discovery zone. The four action alternatives present different ways to manage resources, provide for visitor use and enjoyment, and improve facilities and infrastructure over the next 15 to 20 years. The preferred management alternative (Alternative D) would offer the most diversity of visitor interpretive programs and recreational opportunities and is the only alternative that would contain all five management zones. Under the preferred alternative, no new facilities would be added within the core historic area and the nature discovery zone would encompass one-third of the site. The visitor orientation zone would encompass the parking area, the Tuskegee Airmen National Center (TANC), Airmen Memorial, picnic area, overlook, visitor contact station, and a small parcel currently owned by Tuskegee University. Administration zones would be provided in two areas and the recreation zone would encompass areas in the southeastern portion of the site. Visitor services and facilities could include up to 5,000 feet of natural trails, 1,000 feet of hardened trails, 15 additional wayside exhibits, three kiosks, and a small group program area. An additional four maintenance and two interpretive staff would be needed to support the actions associated with the preferred alternative. Total estimated one-time facilities costs in 2007 dollars for implementation of the preferred alternative are $10.8 million, but costs for the TANC, the Airmen Memorial, any future collections facilities, and real estate costs for city and university-owned properties are not included. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the general management plan would confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of the Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site and provide long-term perspective for planning and decision-making with regard to visitor experience and resource protection issues. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local air quality would be affected by construction-related activities. Minor impacts on the natural soundscape would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090154, 282 pages, May 11, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 09-26 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Schools KW - Trails KW - Universities KW - Alabama KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUSKEGEE+AIRMEN+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+TUSKEGEE%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+TUSKEGEE+AIRMEN+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE%2C+TUSKEGEE%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825247; 13875-090151_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration of a functional, self-sustaining ecosystem at a coastal wetland site known as Prisoners Harbor and a 40-acre associated stream corridor in the lower Canada del Porto Creek on Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara, California is proposed. Santa Cruz island is the largest of the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California and is the home of a variety of unique wildlife and plants and an estimated 3,000 archeological sites associated with the Chumash culture. Ninety percent of the island is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The proposed project area has been ecologically altered over the past 150 years by filling of the wetland, introduction of non-native vegetation, and construction of berm, buildings, roads, and corrals. The degraded wetlands include three types: marine, palustrine, and riverine. The 59.7 acre project area is located at Prisoners Harbor and along the Canada del Puerto on the north side of Santa Cruz Island. The 19-acre Prisoners Harbor area is owned by the National Park Service and the remaining portion in Canada del Porto canyon is owned by The Nature Conservancy. Key issues identified during scoping include issues related to park planning, archeological and historic resources, wetland restoration, eucalyptus removal, and visitor experience at the park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would not conduct any restoration activities, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would remove all of the cattle corrals and restore 3.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, relocate the scale house to its pre-1960s location, remove eucalyptus, control invasive species, construct a protective barrier around a portion of the archeological site, and improve the visitor experience. In addition, a portion of the berm would be removed to reconnect the creek to its floodplain. Alternative C differs from B in that it would remove six of the eight cattle corrals and restore 2.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, without relocating the scale house. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would restore ecosystem function to the former coastal backbarrier wetland at Prisoners Harbor and initiate ecosystem recovery to its associated stream corridor in the lower Canada del Porto while protecting cultural resources, the pier, and the access road. Restoration would result in an additional 3.1 acres of native wetland and 20 acres of riparian habitat for plants and wildlife. Archeological and historic resources would be protected from erosion and degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Riparian restoration activities could disturb existing native vegetation. Removal of the berm would have minor adverse impact related to hydrologic processes due to increased flood frequency. However, flood water velocity and power should be mitigated due to the enlarged left bank floodplain . Removal of corrals and the rock retaining wall would adversely impact historical resources but the district would retain NRHP eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090151, 300 pages, May 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Channel Islands National Park KW - Santa Cruz Island KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ventura, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825124; 13875-090151_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration of a functional, self-sustaining ecosystem at a coastal wetland site known as Prisoners Harbor and a 40-acre associated stream corridor in the lower Canada del Porto Creek on Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara, California is proposed. Santa Cruz island is the largest of the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California and is the home of a variety of unique wildlife and plants and an estimated 3,000 archeological sites associated with the Chumash culture. Ninety percent of the island is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The proposed project area has been ecologically altered over the past 150 years by filling of the wetland, introduction of non-native vegetation, and construction of berm, buildings, roads, and corrals. The degraded wetlands include three types: marine, palustrine, and riverine. The 59.7 acre project area is located at Prisoners Harbor and along the Canada del Puerto on the north side of Santa Cruz Island. The 19-acre Prisoners Harbor area is owned by the National Park Service and the remaining portion in Canada del Porto canyon is owned by The Nature Conservancy. Key issues identified during scoping include issues related to park planning, archeological and historic resources, wetland restoration, eucalyptus removal, and visitor experience at the park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would not conduct any restoration activities, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would remove all of the cattle corrals and restore 3.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, relocate the scale house to its pre-1960s location, remove eucalyptus, control invasive species, construct a protective barrier around a portion of the archeological site, and improve the visitor experience. In addition, a portion of the berm would be removed to reconnect the creek to its floodplain. Alternative C differs from B in that it would remove six of the eight cattle corrals and restore 2.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, without relocating the scale house. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would restore ecosystem function to the former coastal backbarrier wetland at Prisoners Harbor and initiate ecosystem recovery to its associated stream corridor in the lower Canada del Porto while protecting cultural resources, the pier, and the access road. Restoration would result in an additional 3.1 acres of native wetland and 20 acres of riparian habitat for plants and wildlife. Archeological and historic resources would be protected from erosion and degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Riparian restoration activities could disturb existing native vegetation. Removal of the berm would have minor adverse impact related to hydrologic processes due to increased flood frequency. However, flood water velocity and power should be mitigated due to the enlarged left bank floodplain . Removal of corrals and the rock retaining wall would adversely impact historical resources but the district would retain NRHP eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090151, 300 pages, May 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Channel Islands National Park KW - Santa Cruz Island KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ventura, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRISONERS HARBOR COASTAL WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT, CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SANTA CRUZ ISLAND, SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 15227302; 13875 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration of a functional, self-sustaining ecosystem at a coastal wetland site known as Prisoners Harbor and a 40-acre associated stream corridor in the lower Canada del Porto Creek on Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara, California is proposed. Santa Cruz island is the largest of the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California and is the home of a variety of unique wildlife and plants and an estimated 3,000 archeological sites associated with the Chumash culture. Ninety percent of the island is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The proposed project area has been ecologically altered over the past 150 years by filling of the wetland, introduction of non-native vegetation, and construction of berm, buildings, roads, and corrals. The degraded wetlands include three types: marine, palustrine, and riverine. The 59.7 acre project area is located at Prisoners Harbor and along the Canada del Puerto on the north side of Santa Cruz Island. The 19-acre Prisoners Harbor area is owned by the National Park Service and the remaining portion in Canada del Porto canyon is owned by The Nature Conservancy. Key issues identified during scoping include issues related to park planning, archeological and historic resources, wetland restoration, eucalyptus removal, and visitor experience at the park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would not conduct any restoration activities, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would remove all of the cattle corrals and restore 3.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, relocate the scale house to its pre-1960s location, remove eucalyptus, control invasive species, construct a protective barrier around a portion of the archeological site, and improve the visitor experience. In addition, a portion of the berm would be removed to reconnect the creek to its floodplain. Alternative C differs from B in that it would remove six of the eight cattle corrals and restore 2.1 acres of palustrine wetlands and deepwater habitat, without relocating the scale house. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would restore ecosystem function to the former coastal backbarrier wetland at Prisoners Harbor and initiate ecosystem recovery to its associated stream corridor in the lower Canada del Porto while protecting cultural resources, the pier, and the access road. Restoration would result in an additional 3.1 acres of native wetland and 20 acres of riparian habitat for plants and wildlife. Archeological and historic resources would be protected from erosion and degradation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Riparian restoration activities could disturb existing native vegetation. Removal of the berm would have minor adverse impact related to hydrologic processes due to increased flood frequency. However, flood water velocity and power should be mitigated due to the enlarged left bank floodplain . Removal of corrals and the rock retaining wall would adversely impact historical resources but the district would retain NRHP eligibility. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090151, 300 pages, May 8, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Creeks KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Channel Islands National Park KW - Santa Cruz Island KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PRISONERS+HARBOR+COASTAL+WETLANDS+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHANNEL+ISLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+ISLAND%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ventura, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873126648; 13876-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah, and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a double-circuit 500/345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the existing Mona substation to a proposed future 500/345/138kV Limber substation to be located in the Tooele Valley. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including the proponent's Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the project would include: 1) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona Substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a double-circuit 500/345kV transmission line that connects the existing Mona Substation to the future Mona Annex Substation, then on to the future Limber Substation, which would require a 300-foot-wide right-of-way; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Oquirrh Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Terminal Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all 500/345kV transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A1 for the Mona to Limber segment, Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment, and Alternative H for the Limber to Terminal segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is 32 to 36 miles in length and up to 2,640 feet in width. The project's proposed in-service date is targeted for June 2012 and total estimated construction costs are $463.8 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 831 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090152, Draft EIS--386 pages, Appendices--271 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-24 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/873126648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873126640; 13876-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah, and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a double-circuit 500/345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the existing Mona substation to a proposed future 500/345/138kV Limber substation to be located in the Tooele Valley. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including the proponent's Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the project would include: 1) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona Substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a double-circuit 500/345kV transmission line that connects the existing Mona Substation to the future Mona Annex Substation, then on to the future Limber Substation, which would require a 300-foot-wide right-of-way; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Oquirrh Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Terminal Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all 500/345kV transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A1 for the Mona to Limber segment, Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment, and Alternative H for the Limber to Terminal segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is 32 to 36 miles in length and up to 2,640 feet in width. The project's proposed in-service date is targeted for June 2012 and total estimated construction costs are $463.8 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 831 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090152, Draft EIS--386 pages, Appendices--271 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-24 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/873126640?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873126630; 13876-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah, and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a double-circuit 500/345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the existing Mona substation to a proposed future 500/345/138kV Limber substation to be located in the Tooele Valley. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including the proponent's Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the project would include: 1) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona Substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a double-circuit 500/345kV transmission line that connects the existing Mona Substation to the future Mona Annex Substation, then on to the future Limber Substation, which would require a 300-foot-wide right-of-way; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Oquirrh Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Terminal Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all 500/345kV transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A1 for the Mona to Limber segment, Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment, and Alternative H for the Limber to Terminal segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is 32 to 36 miles in length and up to 2,640 feet in width. The project's proposed in-service date is targeted for June 2012 and total estimated construction costs are $463.8 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 831 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090152, Draft EIS--386 pages, Appendices--271 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-24 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/873126630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONA TO OQUIRRH TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR PROJECT AND DRAFT PONY EXPRESS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, JUAB, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36345766; 13876 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way to Rocky Mountain Power (a division of PacifiCorp) for the development of the Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project in Juab, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties, Utah, and the amendment of the Pony Express Resource Management Plan are proposed. Rocky Mountain Power has submitted an application to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a double-circuit 500/345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the existing Mona substation to a proposed future 500/345/138kV Limber substation to be located in the Tooele Valley. Approximately 34 miles, or 24 percent, of the proposed project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District and the granting of right-of-way and designation of a new utility corridor would require an amendment to the BLM Pony Express Resource Management Plan. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to land use and recreation, use of hazardous materials, planned development, property values, and low-income and minority communities. Fifteen alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, including the proponent's Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Permanent facilities of the project would include: 1) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Mona Annex) in Juab County near the existing Mona Substation; 2) a future 500/345/138kV substation (Limber) in Tooele County; 3) a double-circuit 500/345kV transmission line that connects the existing Mona Substation to the future Mona Annex Substation, then on to the future Limber Substation, which would require a 300-foot-wide right-of-way; 4) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Oquirrh Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 5) a double-circuit 345kV transmission line from the future Limber Substation to the existing Terminal Substation, which would require a 150-foot-wide right-of-way; 6) communication regeneration facilities associated with the transmission line and substations; and 7) new access roads to all 500/345kV transmission line structures where there is no existing access. The transmission line route alternatives are divided into three segments and the preferred alternative includes Alternative A1 for the Mona to Limber segment, Alternative D for the Limber to Oquirrh segment, and Alternative H for the Limber to Terminal segment. Based on the alternative selected, an amendment to the Pony Express Resource Management Plan would include establishing a corridor that is 32 to 36 miles in length and up to 2,640 feet in width. The project's proposed in-service date is targeted for June 2012 and total estimated construction costs are $463.8 million in 2009 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow Rocky Mountain Power to expand and upgrade its transmission system in order to meet its obligations as a publicly regulated electric utility to provide safe, reliable, and cost-effective electric transmission service to its retail customers and other users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in permanent loss of approximately 831 acres of vegetation. New roads could facilitate public access into currently inaccessible habitats with adverse impacts to wildlife from legal hunting and poaching. Long-term impacts on visual resources would include loss of scenic quality in the Tintic and Oquirrh mountains and where the transmission line would cross residential and recreation areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090152, Draft EIS--386 pages, Appendices--271 pages and maps, CD-ROM, May 6, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 09-24 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/36345766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MONA+TO+OQUIRRH+TRANSMISSION+CORRIDOR+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+PONY+EXPRESS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+JUAB%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. AN - 756824672; 13869-090145_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a general management plan for the Effigy Mounds National Monument, Clayton and Allamakee counties, Iowa is proposed. Effigy Mounds National Monument was established in 1949 to protect significant prehistoric earth mounds found in northeast Iowa on the bluffs and floodplain of the Mississippi River. The monument's authorized boundary was expanded in 1961 and again in 2000 and it now encompasses a total of 2,526 acres in the North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, and the Heritage Addition and contains about 200 mound sites. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to access, interpretive and education programs, outreach programs, funding, preservation of natural resources, possible boundary expansions, and Wild and Scenic River eligibility determination for the Yellow River. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), a multipurpose center would be built to house the monument's collections and archives, administrative offices, conference and education space, research space, and a library. This center would also promote education, maintenance, and protection activities that would support mound stewardship throughout the four-state region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. Access to and interpretation of the mounds in the Sny Magill and South Unit would be improved and a trail development plan would explore the expansion of visitor trail experiences. Under Alternative C, the visitor center would be reconfigured but the multipurpose center would not be built. Additional trail development would only be allowed when necessary for visitor safety or resource protection. Several land parcels identified as potential additions to Effigy Mounds National Monument would be recommended for acquisition from willing sellers under alternatives B and C. Total estimated costs of implementing alternatives B and C are $8.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively. Estimated annual operating costs under alternatives B and C are $1.6 million and $1.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would address inadequacies in the previous plan and would clearly define the resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national monument. The preferred alternative would provide the highest level of cultural resource management, natural resource conditions, visitor experience, and operational efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would have adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from construction of the new centers and trails. The development proposed would have the potential for some unavoidable impacts on natural and cultural resources, but the trails and small facilities would only entail small areas of potential effect and the proposed research center would be built in an already developed area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090145, 231 pages, May 1, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-23 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Libraries KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Illinois KW - Iowa KW - Minnesota KW - Wisconsin KW - Yellow River KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, Iowa; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. AN - 36350700; 13869 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a general management plan for the Effigy Mounds National Monument, Clayton and Allamakee counties, Iowa is proposed. Effigy Mounds National Monument was established in 1949 to protect significant prehistoric earth mounds found in northeast Iowa on the bluffs and floodplain of the Mississippi River. The monument's authorized boundary was expanded in 1961 and again in 2000 and it now encompasses a total of 2,526 acres in the North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, and the Heritage Addition and contains about 200 mound sites. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to access, interpretive and education programs, outreach programs, funding, preservation of natural resources, possible boundary expansions, and Wild and Scenic River eligibility determination for the Yellow River. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), a multipurpose center would be built to house the monument's collections and archives, administrative offices, conference and education space, research space, and a library. This center would also promote education, maintenance, and protection activities that would support mound stewardship throughout the four-state region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. Access to and interpretation of the mounds in the Sny Magill and South Unit would be improved and a trail development plan would explore the expansion of visitor trail experiences. Under Alternative C, the visitor center would be reconfigured but the multipurpose center would not be built. Additional trail development would only be allowed when necessary for visitor safety or resource protection. Several land parcels identified as potential additions to Effigy Mounds National Monument would be recommended for acquisition from willing sellers under alternatives B and C. Total estimated costs of implementing alternatives B and C are $8.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively. Estimated annual operating costs under alternatives B and C are $1.6 million and $1.3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would address inadequacies in the previous plan and would clearly define the resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved in the national monument. The preferred alternative would provide the highest level of cultural resource management, natural resource conditions, visitor experience, and operational efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would have adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources from construction of the new centers and trails. The development proposed would have the potential for some unavoidable impacts on natural and cultural resources, but the trails and small facilities would only entail small areas of potential effect and the proposed research center would be built in an already developed area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090145, 231 pages, May 1, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-23 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Libraries KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Research Facilities KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Illinois KW - Iowa KW - Minnesota KW - Wisconsin KW - Yellow River KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, Iowa; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 1, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JORDAN COVE ENERGY AND PACIFIC CONNECTOR GAS PIPELINE PROJECT, COOS, DOUGLAS, JACKSON, AND KLAMATH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 36350500; 13867 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to provide a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply access point in Oregon is proposed. The facilities would be located in Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath counties, Oregon. The applicants, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project, L.P. would provide up to 1.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the region through interconnects at one intrastate pipeline and four interstate pipeline systems. New LNG terminal facilities would include an access channel between the existing Coos Bay navigation channel and the slip; an LNG unloading berth and a transfer pipeline; two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each having a capacity of 1.0 million barrels; a vapor-handling system and vaporization equipment capable of regasifying LNG for delivery into the natural gas sendout pipeline; ancillary buildings, safety systems, and other support facilities; a natural gas liquids (NGL) extraction facility, with NGL to be sold to an entity other than Jordan Cove and likely transported from the terminal using railway lines; and a 37-megawatt, natural gas-fired, simple-cycle combustion turbine power plant to provide electric power for the LNG terminal. The natural gas pipeline facilities would include a 234-mile, 36-inch underground sendout pipeline and a natural gas compression station, four natural gas meter stations, five pig launchers and/or receivers, 16 mainline block valves, five new communication towers, and additional communications equipment installed at eight existing towers. The Pacific Connector pipeline would deliver natural gas to the Williams Northwest Pipeline Corporation Grants Pass Lateral interstate pipeline near Clarks Branch, Oregon, and would terminate near the California border, east of Malin, Oregon, with additional interconnections with the existing pipeline systems for Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The applicants' pipeline would also deliver gas to Avista Corporation, a local distribution company that is not federally regulated; the interconnection would be located near Shady Grove, Oregon. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No-Action Alternative (an alternative that would postpone the proposed action), system alternatives, LNG terminal site alternatives, LNG terminal layout alternatives, and pipeline route alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed terminal and pipeline facilities would provide a new source of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest and northern California and Nevada electric generation facilities, easing importation of foreign sources of LNG into these growing markets, thereby, supporting expansion and diversification of the economic activities of the entire region. Construction of the terminal facilities would employ an average of 470 workers, with total wages of $119 million; $74 million would be expended on goods and services in the region. Construction of the pipeline would employ 1,844, with an overall payroll of $166 million; $320 million would be expended on materials and equipment. Indirect employment would also be anticipated and the port authority for Coos Bay and other government authorities would benefit from fees and taxes related to the enterprise. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Marine habitat and 405 acres of wetlands would be affected by the pipeline system. Approximately 64 percent of the pipeline system would traverse forested land, while 44 percent of the route would cross agricultural lands. The pipeline system would traverse six wellhead protection areas, five of which are within 200 feet of the pipeline rights-of-way. The pipeline would cross 379 waterbodies in several subbasins, namely, the Coos, Coquille, South Umpqua, Upper Rogue, Upper Klamath, and Lost River subbasins. All facilities proposed would lie within areas of moderate-to-low seismic activity; tsunami risk is somewhat higher. Dredging the Coos Bay access channel would temporarily degrade water quality by releasing turbidity into the water column. One archaeological site within the terminal footprint and at least 12 of the 98 sites that could be affected by pipeline construction and operation could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 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.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0383D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090143, Volume I--509 pages, Volume II--553 pages, CD-ROM, April 30, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0223F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JORDAN+COVE+ENERGY+AND+PACIFIC+CONNECTOR+GAS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COOS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JORDAN+COVE+ENERGY+AND+PACIFIC+CONNECTOR+GAS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COOS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, YOSEMITE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, YOSEMITE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825231; 13866-090142_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Development of improved facilities for the Yosemite Institute Environmental Campus, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California is proposed. The non-profit Yosemite Institute, a National Park Service partner, has provided environmental education programs in the park since 1971 at its Crane Flat campus, which consists of dormitories, a dining hall and gathering area, and bathhouses. The campus was assembled over time from older park structures not intentionally designed for educational purposes and most of the campus structures and utilities are more than 60 years old, energy inefficient, and difficult to retrofit to achieve modern standards for health, safety, and accessibility. In addition, the campus can accommodate only a fraction of the students in the program; the remainder must be based elsewhere in the park in leased commercial lodging. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative, necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major rehabilitation of facilities, construction of buildings, or improvements to utilities would occur. Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat campus would be redeveloped, doubling its capacity to 154 students and 14 staff. Most buildings would be removed and replaced while two historic properties would be retained. Utilities would be upgraded and the majority of the campus would be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The preferred alternative (Alternative 3 ) would establish a new campus location and program at Henness Ridge where new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 224 students and 20 staff and utilities would be installed, including water storage, wastewater treatment, electricity, a solar array, and an emergency generator. A new firehouse would also be constructed and would be integral to the campus design. A water treatment plant would be constructed at Chinquapin. Electricity would be supplemented by tying into existing electric transmission lines. All facilities would be ADA-accessible and meet fire, health, and safety standards. The campus would include approximately 51,029 square feet of space. All existing campus structures and facilities, including historic properties at Crane Flat would be removed, and the site would be restored to natural conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would provide a safe and universally accessible campus facility that meets modern health standards. Program student capacity would be increased while reliance upon commercial lodging would be reduced and, as a result, student lodging would be more reliable and less costly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related grading, leveling, and minor excavation would cause soil compaction and topsoil erosion at the Henness Ridge site. Impacts to water quality would include construction-related stormwater runoff, an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, and new wastewater generation. Protected species would be impacted by loss of habitat, noise and ground vibrations, noise from campus activities, artificial light, automobile traffic, and creation of new trails. Vegetation removal could result in the removal of important habitat for Pacific fisher and nesting and perching sites for owls and bats. LEGAL MANDATES: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-36) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090142, 500 pages, April 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Electric Generators KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Storage KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+YOSEMITE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+YOSEMITE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, YOSEMITE, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, YOSEMITE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825113; 13866-090142_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Development of improved facilities for the Yosemite Institute Environmental Campus, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California is proposed. The non-profit Yosemite Institute, a National Park Service partner, has provided environmental education programs in the park since 1971 at its Crane Flat campus, which consists of dormitories, a dining hall and gathering area, and bathhouses. The campus was assembled over time from older park structures not intentionally designed for educational purposes and most of the campus structures and utilities are more than 60 years old, energy inefficient, and difficult to retrofit to achieve modern standards for health, safety, and accessibility. In addition, the campus can accommodate only a fraction of the students in the program; the remainder must be based elsewhere in the park in leased commercial lodging. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative, necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major rehabilitation of facilities, construction of buildings, or improvements to utilities would occur. Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat campus would be redeveloped, doubling its capacity to 154 students and 14 staff. Most buildings would be removed and replaced while two historic properties would be retained. Utilities would be upgraded and the majority of the campus would be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The preferred alternative (Alternative 3 ) would establish a new campus location and program at Henness Ridge where new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 224 students and 20 staff and utilities would be installed, including water storage, wastewater treatment, electricity, a solar array, and an emergency generator. A new firehouse would also be constructed and would be integral to the campus design. A water treatment plant would be constructed at Chinquapin. Electricity would be supplemented by tying into existing electric transmission lines. All facilities would be ADA-accessible and meet fire, health, and safety standards. The campus would include approximately 51,029 square feet of space. All existing campus structures and facilities, including historic properties at Crane Flat would be removed, and the site would be restored to natural conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would provide a safe and universally accessible campus facility that meets modern health standards. Program student capacity would be increased while reliance upon commercial lodging would be reduced and, as a result, student lodging would be more reliable and less costly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related grading, leveling, and minor excavation would cause soil compaction and topsoil erosion at the Henness Ridge site. Impacts to water quality would include construction-related stormwater runoff, an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, and new wastewater generation. Protected species would be impacted by loss of habitat, noise and ground vibrations, noise from campus activities, artificial light, automobile traffic, and creation of new trails. Vegetation removal could result in the removal of important habitat for Pacific fisher and nesting and perching sites for owls and bats. LEGAL MANDATES: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-36) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090142, 500 pages, April 29, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Electric Generators KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Storage KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+YOSEMITE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+YOSEMITE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YOSEMITE INSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMPUS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, YOSEMITE, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344518; 13866 AB - PURPOSE: Development of improved facilities for the Yosemite Institute Environmental Campus, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California is proposed. The non-profit Yosemite Institute, a National Park Service partner, has provided environmental education programs in the park since 1971 at its Crane Flat campus, which consists of dormitories, a dining hall and gathering area, and bathhouses. The campus was assembled over time from older park structures not intentionally designed for educational purposes and most of the campus structures and utilities are more than 60 years old, energy inefficient, and difficult to retrofit to achieve modern standards for health, safety, and accessibility. In addition, the campus can accommodate only a fraction of the students in the program; the remainder must be based elsewhere in the park in leased commercial lodging. Three alternatives, including a No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative, necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major rehabilitation of facilities, construction of buildings, or improvements to utilities would occur. Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat campus would be redeveloped, doubling its capacity to 154 students and 14 staff. Most buildings would be removed and replaced while two historic properties would be retained. Utilities would be upgraded and the majority of the campus would be accessible to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The preferred alternative (Alternative 3 ) would establish a new campus location and program at Henness Ridge where new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 224 students and 20 staff and utilities would be installed, including water storage, wastewater treatment, electricity, a solar array, and an emergency generator. A new firehouse would also be constructed and would be integral to the campus design. A water treatment plant would be constructed at Chinquapin. Electricity would be supplemented by tying into existing electric transmission lines. All facilities would be ADA-accessible and meet fire, health, and safety standards. The campus would include approximately 51,029 square feet of space. All existing campus structures and facilities, including historic properties at Crane Flat would be removed, and the site would be restored to natural conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would provide a safe and universally accessible campus facility that meets modern health standards. Program student capacity would be increased while reliance upon commercial lodging would be reduced and, as a result, student lodging would be more reliable and less costly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related grading, leveling, and minor excavation would cause soil compaction and topsoil erosion at the Henness Ridge site. Impacts to water quality would include construction-related stormwater runoff, an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, and new wastewater generation. Protected species would be impacted by loss of habitat, noise and ground vibrations, noise from campus activities, artificial light, automobile traffic, and creation of new trails. Vegetation removal could result in the removal of important habitat for Pacific fisher and nesting and perching sites for owls and bats. LEGAL MANDATES: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-36) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090142, 500 pages, April 29, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Buildings KW - Demolition KW - Electric Generators KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Safety KW - Schools KW - Solar Energy KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Storage KW - California KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+YOSEMITE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=YOSEMITE+INSTITUTE+ENVIRONMENTAL+EDUCATION+CAMPUS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+YOSEMITE%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 29, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756827220; 14506-090135_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way (ROW) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County Land Act (LCLA) Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project in Nevada. Project facilities would be located primarily within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 30, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley and Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. Under the proposed action, water facilities would include: 75 miles of main water line and well field collection pipelines for up to 30 wells; up to five storage tanks; additional monitoring wells; and up to four water pipeline booster stations. Electric utility facilities would include: a new 138-kilovolt (kV) double-circuit overhead transmission line; a new substation in the Tule Desert; a new 22.8-kV double-circuit overhead distribution line; new 22.8-kV and 4.16-kV overhead distribution lines; and new aboveground substations at each well site, booster station, and flow control station. Other facilities would include a natural gas pipeline up to 16 inches in diameter, a new natural gas metering station, radio telemetry or fiber optic cable control systems to be buried with the groundwater pipelines, and temporary and permanent access roads. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued, and the LCCRDA Corridor Alternative (Alternative 1), under which the ROW would remain within the corridor from the north end of Tule Desert to the LCLA development area. The location of the Tule Desert and Clover Valley groundwater wells fields would be the same under the proposed action and Alternative 1. The proposed action is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the ROWs would allow the LCWD to construct infrastructure required to pump and convey groundwater resources in the Clover Valley and Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas to help meet current and future municipal water needs in newly urbanizing areas in southeastern Lincoln County. Constructing utilities within designated BLM utility corridors and/or adjacent to existing BLM-granted utility ROWs would limit the fragmentation of habitat, and deliver water and power to the LCLA development area in a location that is technologically advantageous. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat, erosion, and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of goundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.5 acres and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. Construction activities within the Clover Valley and Tule Desert areas could temporarily restrict access into the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wildernesses. The proposed action could affect 51 historic properties, all but one of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0279D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090135, 689 pages, April 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-05 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756827037; 14506-090135_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way (ROW) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County Land Act (LCLA) Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project in Nevada. Project facilities would be located primarily within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 30, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley and Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. Under the proposed action, water facilities would include: 75 miles of main water line and well field collection pipelines for up to 30 wells; up to five storage tanks; additional monitoring wells; and up to four water pipeline booster stations. Electric utility facilities would include: a new 138-kilovolt (kV) double-circuit overhead transmission line; a new substation in the Tule Desert; a new 22.8-kV double-circuit overhead distribution line; new 22.8-kV and 4.16-kV overhead distribution lines; and new aboveground substations at each well site, booster station, and flow control station. Other facilities would include a natural gas pipeline up to 16 inches in diameter, a new natural gas metering station, radio telemetry or fiber optic cable control systems to be buried with the groundwater pipelines, and temporary and permanent access roads. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued, and the LCCRDA Corridor Alternative (Alternative 1), under which the ROW would remain within the corridor from the north end of Tule Desert to the LCLA development area. The location of the Tule Desert and Clover Valley groundwater wells fields would be the same under the proposed action and Alternative 1. The proposed action is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the ROWs would allow the LCWD to construct infrastructure required to pump and convey groundwater resources in the Clover Valley and Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas to help meet current and future municipal water needs in newly urbanizing areas in southeastern Lincoln County. Constructing utilities within designated BLM utility corridors and/or adjacent to existing BLM-granted utility ROWs would limit the fragmentation of habitat, and deliver water and power to the LCLA development area in a location that is technologically advantageous. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat, erosion, and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of goundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.5 acres and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. Construction activities within the Clover Valley and Tule Desert areas could temporarily restrict access into the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wildernesses. The proposed action could affect 51 historic properties, all but one of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0279D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090135, 689 pages, April 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-05 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN COUNTY LAND ACT GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 754909017; 14506 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of a right-of-way (ROW) by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of the Lincoln County Land Act (LCLA) Groundwater Development Utility Right-of-Way Project in Nevada. Project facilities would be located primarily within or immediately adjacent to the 2,640-foot-wide utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA). Enacted on November 30, 2004, the LCCRDA designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for roads, wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure needs for the construction and operation of water conveyance systems. LCWD, in cooperation with Lincoln County Power District No. 1 (LCPD) and the Lincoln County Telephone Company (LCT), would construct groundwater and ancillary facilities in order to pump and convey groundwater that has been permitted or may be permitted in the Clover Valley and Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas for use by LCWD customers. In addition, Southwest Gas Corporation is proposing to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and metering facility within the southernmost portion of the project corridor. ROW grants may be issued based on future agreements between LCWD and LCPD/LCT and the analysis in this EIS process. Under the proposed action, water facilities would include: 75 miles of main water line and well field collection pipelines for up to 30 wells; up to five storage tanks; additional monitoring wells; and up to four water pipeline booster stations. Electric utility facilities would include: a new 138-kilovolt (kV) double-circuit overhead transmission line; a new substation in the Tule Desert; a new 22.8-kV double-circuit overhead distribution line; new 22.8-kV and 4.16-kV overhead distribution lines; and new aboveground substations at each well site, booster station, and flow control station. Other facilities would include a natural gas pipeline up to 16 inches in diameter, a new natural gas metering station, radio telemetry or fiber optic cable control systems to be buried with the groundwater pipelines, and temporary and permanent access roads. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which no ROW grant would be issued, and the LCCRDA Corridor Alternative (Alternative 1), under which the ROW would remain within the corridor from the north end of Tule Desert to the LCLA development area. The location of the Tule Desert and Clover Valley groundwater wells fields would be the same under the proposed action and Alternative 1. The proposed action is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the ROWs would allow the LCWD to construct infrastructure required to pump and convey groundwater resources in the Clover Valley and Tule Desert Hydrographic Areas to help meet current and future municipal water needs in newly urbanizing areas in southeastern Lincoln County. Constructing utilities within designated BLM utility corridors and/or adjacent to existing BLM-granted utility ROWs would limit the fragmentation of habitat, and deliver water and power to the LCLA development area in a location that is technologically advantageous. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facilities to be constructed would operate within a seismically active area. Construction activities would disturb 1,878 acres of desert soils and vegetation, resulting in the temporary loss of wildlife habitat, erosion, and surface flow sedimentation. The pumping of goundwater would lower the groundwater table. Approximately 240 acres of vegetation would be permanently displaced. Desert tortoise habitat would be disturbed temporarily across 848.5 acres and permanently across 108 acres. Grazing operations and public uses of the area would be disrupted during construction activities. Construction activities within the Clover Valley and Tule Desert areas could temporarily restrict access into the Clover Mountain and Mormon Mountains Wildernesses. The proposed action could affect 51 historic properties, all but one of which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act (P.L. 108-424), Lincoln County Land Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0279D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090135, 689 pages, April 24, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 09-05 KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Grazing KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Use KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, Development Act, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Land Act, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=LINCOLN+COUNTY+LAND+ACT+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+AND+UTILITY+RIGHT-OF-WAY+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+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, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756825053; 13854-090132_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Harpers Ferry National Park, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia is proposed. Harpers Ferry National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1944, and became Harpers Ferry National Park on May 29, 1963. The last comprehensive management plan for the national historical park was completed in 1980 and since that date visitor use patterns and types of use have changed and an additional 1,240 acres were added to the park in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would present 250 years of history at the site through exhibits at a new visitor center. Visitors would enter the park at Cavalier Heights, where a visitor contact station would be enlarged to provide orientation and information on the park's resources and to serve as starting point for an expanded transportation system. It would also be a stop on the new around-the-park trail that would allow visitors to hike to all areas of the park. Visitors could ride the transportation system to Lower Town where they would be immersed in a 19th century environment of preserved historic buildings, period shops, exhibits, and outdoor furnishings. A smaller information center and bookstore would remain but possibly in new locations. The Federal Armory would retain its current access and a study of the feasibility of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken. The train station would become a secondary portal to the site and the armory canal would be restored and rewatered. Additionally, Alternative 2 would preserve Virginius and Hall Islands as an archaeological preserve, manage Camp Hill with a campus atmosphere reminiscent of the Storer College era, rehabilitate and enlarge the historic Grandview School, preserve the Nash farm as a dairy farm of the 1940s, and manage Bolivar Heights and Schoolhouse Ridge to maintain a battlefield landscape appearance. Takeout facilities at the Potomac Wayside would be upgraded to facilitate river use and restroom facilities would be provided. Loudon Heights would be developed as a Civil War overlook and Maryland Heights would undergo stabilization of earthworks and fortifications. Alternative 3 would provide an experience similar to Alternative 2, but would depend more on partnerships with businesses and organizations for implementation. The visitor center on Cavalier Heights would serve as a combined park/regional facility and the transportation system would be smaller than the system in Alternative 2. No study of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken and the armory canal would be restored but not rewatered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in an overall increased preservation of historic resources and a greatly improved visitor experience, both in Lower Town and elsewhere in the park. Alternative 3 would result in a more efficient and rehabilitated National Park Service headquarters and a new emphasis on working with commercial enterprises to lease under-used historic structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in minor adverse impact on state-listed species. Possible loss of visitor access to some leased structures could occur under Alternative 3. Short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on soundscapes would be expected under alternatives 2 and 3. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090132, 307 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-20 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisition KW - National Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756825046; 13854-090132_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Harpers Ferry National Park, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia is proposed. Harpers Ferry National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1944, and became Harpers Ferry National Park on May 29, 1963. The last comprehensive management plan for the national historical park was completed in 1980 and since that date visitor use patterns and types of use have changed and an additional 1,240 acres were added to the park in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would present 250 years of history at the site through exhibits at a new visitor center. Visitors would enter the park at Cavalier Heights, where a visitor contact station would be enlarged to provide orientation and information on the park's resources and to serve as starting point for an expanded transportation system. It would also be a stop on the new around-the-park trail that would allow visitors to hike to all areas of the park. Visitors could ride the transportation system to Lower Town where they would be immersed in a 19th century environment of preserved historic buildings, period shops, exhibits, and outdoor furnishings. A smaller information center and bookstore would remain but possibly in new locations. The Federal Armory would retain its current access and a study of the feasibility of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken. The train station would become a secondary portal to the site and the armory canal would be restored and rewatered. Additionally, Alternative 2 would preserve Virginius and Hall Islands as an archaeological preserve, manage Camp Hill with a campus atmosphere reminiscent of the Storer College era, rehabilitate and enlarge the historic Grandview School, preserve the Nash farm as a dairy farm of the 1940s, and manage Bolivar Heights and Schoolhouse Ridge to maintain a battlefield landscape appearance. Takeout facilities at the Potomac Wayside would be upgraded to facilitate river use and restroom facilities would be provided. Loudon Heights would be developed as a Civil War overlook and Maryland Heights would undergo stabilization of earthworks and fortifications. Alternative 3 would provide an experience similar to Alternative 2, but would depend more on partnerships with businesses and organizations for implementation. The visitor center on Cavalier Heights would serve as a combined park/regional facility and the transportation system would be smaller than the system in Alternative 2. No study of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken and the armory canal would be restored but not rewatered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in an overall increased preservation of historic resources and a greatly improved visitor experience, both in Lower Town and elsewhere in the park. Alternative 3 would result in a more efficient and rehabilitated National Park Service headquarters and a new emphasis on working with commercial enterprises to lease under-used historic structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in minor adverse impact on state-listed species. Possible loss of visitor access to some leased structures could occur under Alternative 3. Short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on soundscapes would be expected under alternatives 2 and 3. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090132, 307 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-20 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisition KW - National Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756825004; 13855-090133_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area approximately three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355), which runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors, is affected by heavy volumes of high-speed commuter and commercial vehicles traffic, which creates a safety problem and encroaches upon the visitor experience. Much of the national battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored and visitation figures (about 14,700 in 2003) reflect the low level of public awareness of the Monocacy National Battlefield. With land acquisition nearly complete, opening of more of the national battlefield to visitation probably will increase visitation considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. In all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and the site of Major General Lew Wallace's headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, National battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning I-270 is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090133, 269 pages, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-21 KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisition KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 756824931; 13854-090132_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Harpers Ferry National Park, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia is proposed. Harpers Ferry National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1944, and became Harpers Ferry National Park on May 29, 1963. The last comprehensive management plan for the national historical park was completed in 1980 and since that date visitor use patterns and types of use have changed and an additional 1,240 acres were added to the park in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would present 250 years of history at the site through exhibits at a new visitor center. Visitors would enter the park at Cavalier Heights, where a visitor contact station would be enlarged to provide orientation and information on the park's resources and to serve as starting point for an expanded transportation system. It would also be a stop on the new around-the-park trail that would allow visitors to hike to all areas of the park. Visitors could ride the transportation system to Lower Town where they would be immersed in a 19th century environment of preserved historic buildings, period shops, exhibits, and outdoor furnishings. A smaller information center and bookstore would remain but possibly in new locations. The Federal Armory would retain its current access and a study of the feasibility of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken. The train station would become a secondary portal to the site and the armory canal would be restored and rewatered. Additionally, Alternative 2 would preserve Virginius and Hall Islands as an archaeological preserve, manage Camp Hill with a campus atmosphere reminiscent of the Storer College era, rehabilitate and enlarge the historic Grandview School, preserve the Nash farm as a dairy farm of the 1940s, and manage Bolivar Heights and Schoolhouse Ridge to maintain a battlefield landscape appearance. Takeout facilities at the Potomac Wayside would be upgraded to facilitate river use and restroom facilities would be provided. Loudon Heights would be developed as a Civil War overlook and Maryland Heights would undergo stabilization of earthworks and fortifications. Alternative 3 would provide an experience similar to Alternative 2, but would depend more on partnerships with businesses and organizations for implementation. The visitor center on Cavalier Heights would serve as a combined park/regional facility and the transportation system would be smaller than the system in Alternative 2. No study of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken and the armory canal would be restored but not rewatered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in an overall increased preservation of historic resources and a greatly improved visitor experience, both in Lower Town and elsewhere in the park. Alternative 3 would result in a more efficient and rehabilitated National Park Service headquarters and a new emphasis on working with commercial enterprises to lease under-used historic structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in minor adverse impact on state-listed species. Possible loss of visitor access to some leased structures could occur under Alternative 3. Short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on soundscapes would be expected under alternatives 2 and 3. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090132, 307 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-20 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisition KW - National Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 36349733; 13854 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Harpers Ferry National Park, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia is proposed. Harpers Ferry National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1944, and became Harpers Ferry National Park on May 29, 1963. The last comprehensive management plan for the national historical park was completed in 1980 and since that date visitor use patterns and types of use have changed and an additional 1,240 acres were added to the park in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would present 250 years of history at the site through exhibits at a new visitor center. Visitors would enter the park at Cavalier Heights, where a visitor contact station would be enlarged to provide orientation and information on the park's resources and to serve as starting point for an expanded transportation system. It would also be a stop on the new around-the-park trail that would allow visitors to hike to all areas of the park. Visitors could ride the transportation system to Lower Town where they would be immersed in a 19th century environment of preserved historic buildings, period shops, exhibits, and outdoor furnishings. A smaller information center and bookstore would remain but possibly in new locations. The Federal Armory would retain its current access and a study of the feasibility of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken. The train station would become a secondary portal to the site and the armory canal would be restored and rewatered. Additionally, Alternative 2 would preserve Virginius and Hall Islands as an archaeological preserve, manage Camp Hill with a campus atmosphere reminiscent of the Storer College era, rehabilitate and enlarge the historic Grandview School, preserve the Nash farm as a dairy farm of the 1940s, and manage Bolivar Heights and Schoolhouse Ridge to maintain a battlefield landscape appearance. Takeout facilities at the Potomac Wayside would be upgraded to facilitate river use and restroom facilities would be provided. Loudon Heights would be developed as a Civil War overlook and Maryland Heights would undergo stabilization of earthworks and fortifications. Alternative 3 would provide an experience similar to Alternative 2, but would depend more on partnerships with businesses and organizations for implementation. The visitor center on Cavalier Heights would serve as a combined park/regional facility and the transportation system would be smaller than the system in Alternative 2. No study of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken and the armory canal would be restored but not rewatered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in an overall increased preservation of historic resources and a greatly improved visitor experience, both in Lower Town and elsewhere in the park. Alternative 3 would result in a more efficient and rehabilitated National Park Service headquarters and a new emphasis on working with commercial enterprises to lease under-used historic structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in minor adverse impact on state-listed species. Possible loss of visitor access to some leased structures could occur under Alternative 3. Short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on soundscapes would be expected under alternatives 2 and 3. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090132, 307 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-20 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisition KW - National Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36343690; 13855 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area approximately three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355), which runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors, is affected by heavy volumes of high-speed commuter and commercial vehicles traffic, which creates a safety problem and encroaches upon the visitor experience. Much of the national battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored and visitation figures (about 14,700 in 2003) reflect the low level of public awareness of the Monocacy National Battlefield. With land acquisition nearly complete, opening of more of the national battlefield to visitation probably will increase visitation considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. In all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and the site of Major General Lew Wallace's headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, National battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning I-270 is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090133, 269 pages, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-21 KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisition KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. AN - 756825228; 13852-090130_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1982 general management plan for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee is proposed to alter management of the Elkmont Historic District in the Tennessee section of the park. The historic district, which is located in Sevier County, six miles from park headquarters and eight miles from Gatlinburg, Tennessee, has European-American historical roots that extend back to the 1830s, when a subsistence agricultural settlement was created along Jakes Creek, a tributary of the Little River. By the 1880s, the first small-scale logging operations were underway in the area. Large-scale industrial logging began in the early 1900s, when the Little River Lumber Company was established in Townsend, Tennessee. By 1908, the company had constructed a rail line along the Little River from Townsend to the current site of Elkmont. In 1910 and 1912, two private resort communities were established on the outskirts of Elkmont and between 1910 and 1940, a social clubhouse, a hotel and annex, and several dozen individual vacation cabins were constructed as part of these two, separate social clubs. In 1926, legislation for the creation of a national park in the Smoky Mountains was passed by Congress and, in 1934, the park was officially established. Property owners in the two clubs were granted lifetime leases, which were subsequently exchanged for fixed-term leases, extended, and ultimately expired. Vacated buildings have remained empty pending a management decision. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would retain the Appalachian Clubhouse and 16 historic buildings in the area immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, known as Daisy Town. Fifteen of these 16 buildings are listed as contributing elements to the character of the district. The Daisy Town area represents the first portion of the resort community to be developed. Additionally, one cabin in the area known as Society Hill would be retained due to its association with David C. Chapman, an important figure in the national park movement during the 1920s and 1930s. In all areas where buildings were removed, native plant communities and natural systems would be restored. Chimneys and other cultural landscape features would remain unless retention of these features would present a safety hazard. The Appalachian Clubhouse would be rehabilitated on the interior for day use opportunities under special use permit. The restored cabin would serve as a museum community. Parking spaces for 106 vehicles would be provided to accommodate day users and to provide parking for trail users leaving from Elkmont. Sensitive plant communities, such as montane alluvial forest species, would be actively restored. Cost of implementing Alternative C is estimated at $6.3 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would strike a balance between natural and cultural resources while permitting traditional uses and additional new uses to occur. Some of the district's most important resources would be preserved, including the original portion of the resort community, the Chapman cabin, and the dominant area of montane alluvial forest currently occupied by buildings. Removal of buildings and restoration of pristine and, globally imperiled, montane alluvial forest would reinstate native vegetation to the district. Expected increases in visitation would add to National Park Service revenues and boost the local commercial economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While many components of the cultural landscape would remain, including the clubhouse and 15 contributing buildings, nearly two-thirds of the contributing buildings in the district would be removed. Additional sewage generated by the day use facility at the clubhouse would be added to the existing campground effluent, but this increase would have a negligible environmental impact. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090130, Vol. 1--436 pages and maps, Vol. 2--270 pages, April 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-07 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Historic District KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elkmont Historic District KW - Great Smoky Mountains National Park KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. AN - 756825041; 13852-090130_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1982 general management plan for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee is proposed to alter management of the Elkmont Historic District in the Tennessee section of the park. The historic district, which is located in Sevier County, six miles from park headquarters and eight miles from Gatlinburg, Tennessee, has European-American historical roots that extend back to the 1830s, when a subsistence agricultural settlement was created along Jakes Creek, a tributary of the Little River. By the 1880s, the first small-scale logging operations were underway in the area. Large-scale industrial logging began in the early 1900s, when the Little River Lumber Company was established in Townsend, Tennessee. By 1908, the company had constructed a rail line along the Little River from Townsend to the current site of Elkmont. In 1910 and 1912, two private resort communities were established on the outskirts of Elkmont and between 1910 and 1940, a social clubhouse, a hotel and annex, and several dozen individual vacation cabins were constructed as part of these two, separate social clubs. In 1926, legislation for the creation of a national park in the Smoky Mountains was passed by Congress and, in 1934, the park was officially established. Property owners in the two clubs were granted lifetime leases, which were subsequently exchanged for fixed-term leases, extended, and ultimately expired. Vacated buildings have remained empty pending a management decision. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would retain the Appalachian Clubhouse and 16 historic buildings in the area immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, known as Daisy Town. Fifteen of these 16 buildings are listed as contributing elements to the character of the district. The Daisy Town area represents the first portion of the resort community to be developed. Additionally, one cabin in the area known as Society Hill would be retained due to its association with David C. Chapman, an important figure in the national park movement during the 1920s and 1930s. In all areas where buildings were removed, native plant communities and natural systems would be restored. Chimneys and other cultural landscape features would remain unless retention of these features would present a safety hazard. The Appalachian Clubhouse would be rehabilitated on the interior for day use opportunities under special use permit. The restored cabin would serve as a museum community. Parking spaces for 106 vehicles would be provided to accommodate day users and to provide parking for trail users leaving from Elkmont. Sensitive plant communities, such as montane alluvial forest species, would be actively restored. Cost of implementing Alternative C is estimated at $6.3 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would strike a balance between natural and cultural resources while permitting traditional uses and additional new uses to occur. Some of the district's most important resources would be preserved, including the original portion of the resort community, the Chapman cabin, and the dominant area of montane alluvial forest currently occupied by buildings. Removal of buildings and restoration of pristine and, globally imperiled, montane alluvial forest would reinstate native vegetation to the district. Expected increases in visitation would add to National Park Service revenues and boost the local commercial economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While many components of the cultural landscape would remain, including the clubhouse and 15 contributing buildings, nearly two-thirds of the contributing buildings in the district would be removed. Additional sewage generated by the day use facility at the clubhouse would be added to the existing campground effluent, but this increase would have a negligible environmental impact. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090130, Vol. 1--436 pages and maps, Vol. 2--270 pages, April 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-07 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Historic District KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elkmont Historic District KW - Great Smoky Mountains National Park KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. AN - 756824971; 13852-090130_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1982 general management plan for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee is proposed to alter management of the Elkmont Historic District in the Tennessee section of the park. The historic district, which is located in Sevier County, six miles from park headquarters and eight miles from Gatlinburg, Tennessee, has European-American historical roots that extend back to the 1830s, when a subsistence agricultural settlement was created along Jakes Creek, a tributary of the Little River. By the 1880s, the first small-scale logging operations were underway in the area. Large-scale industrial logging began in the early 1900s, when the Little River Lumber Company was established in Townsend, Tennessee. By 1908, the company had constructed a rail line along the Little River from Townsend to the current site of Elkmont. In 1910 and 1912, two private resort communities were established on the outskirts of Elkmont and between 1910 and 1940, a social clubhouse, a hotel and annex, and several dozen individual vacation cabins were constructed as part of these two, separate social clubs. In 1926, legislation for the creation of a national park in the Smoky Mountains was passed by Congress and, in 1934, the park was officially established. Property owners in the two clubs were granted lifetime leases, which were subsequently exchanged for fixed-term leases, extended, and ultimately expired. Vacated buildings have remained empty pending a management decision. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would retain the Appalachian Clubhouse and 16 historic buildings in the area immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, known as Daisy Town. Fifteen of these 16 buildings are listed as contributing elements to the character of the district. The Daisy Town area represents the first portion of the resort community to be developed. Additionally, one cabin in the area known as Society Hill would be retained due to its association with David C. Chapman, an important figure in the national park movement during the 1920s and 1930s. In all areas where buildings were removed, native plant communities and natural systems would be restored. Chimneys and other cultural landscape features would remain unless retention of these features would present a safety hazard. The Appalachian Clubhouse would be rehabilitated on the interior for day use opportunities under special use permit. The restored cabin would serve as a museum community. Parking spaces for 106 vehicles would be provided to accommodate day users and to provide parking for trail users leaving from Elkmont. Sensitive plant communities, such as montane alluvial forest species, would be actively restored. Cost of implementing Alternative C is estimated at $6.3 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would strike a balance between natural and cultural resources while permitting traditional uses and additional new uses to occur. Some of the district's most important resources would be preserved, including the original portion of the resort community, the Chapman cabin, and the dominant area of montane alluvial forest currently occupied by buildings. Removal of buildings and restoration of pristine and, globally imperiled, montane alluvial forest would reinstate native vegetation to the district. Expected increases in visitation would add to National Park Service revenues and boost the local commercial economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While many components of the cultural landscape would remain, including the clubhouse and 15 contributing buildings, nearly two-thirds of the contributing buildings in the district would be removed. Additional sewage generated by the day use facility at the clubhouse would be added to the existing campground effluent, but this increase would have a negligible environmental impact. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090130, Vol. 1--436 pages and maps, Vol. 2--270 pages, April 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-07 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Historic District KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elkmont Historic District KW - Great Smoky Mountains National Park KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. AN - 756824694; 13852-090130_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1982 general management plan for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee is proposed to alter management of the Elkmont Historic District in the Tennessee section of the park. The historic district, which is located in Sevier County, six miles from park headquarters and eight miles from Gatlinburg, Tennessee, has European-American historical roots that extend back to the 1830s, when a subsistence agricultural settlement was created along Jakes Creek, a tributary of the Little River. By the 1880s, the first small-scale logging operations were underway in the area. Large-scale industrial logging began in the early 1900s, when the Little River Lumber Company was established in Townsend, Tennessee. By 1908, the company had constructed a rail line along the Little River from Townsend to the current site of Elkmont. In 1910 and 1912, two private resort communities were established on the outskirts of Elkmont and between 1910 and 1940, a social clubhouse, a hotel and annex, and several dozen individual vacation cabins were constructed as part of these two, separate social clubs. In 1926, legislation for the creation of a national park in the Smoky Mountains was passed by Congress and, in 1934, the park was officially established. Property owners in the two clubs were granted lifetime leases, which were subsequently exchanged for fixed-term leases, extended, and ultimately expired. Vacated buildings have remained empty pending a management decision. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would retain the Appalachian Clubhouse and 16 historic buildings in the area immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, known as Daisy Town. Fifteen of these 16 buildings are listed as contributing elements to the character of the district. The Daisy Town area represents the first portion of the resort community to be developed. Additionally, one cabin in the area known as Society Hill would be retained due to its association with David C. Chapman, an important figure in the national park movement during the 1920s and 1930s. In all areas where buildings were removed, native plant communities and natural systems would be restored. Chimneys and other cultural landscape features would remain unless retention of these features would present a safety hazard. The Appalachian Clubhouse would be rehabilitated on the interior for day use opportunities under special use permit. The restored cabin would serve as a museum community. Parking spaces for 106 vehicles would be provided to accommodate day users and to provide parking for trail users leaving from Elkmont. Sensitive plant communities, such as montane alluvial forest species, would be actively restored. Cost of implementing Alternative C is estimated at $6.3 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would strike a balance between natural and cultural resources while permitting traditional uses and additional new uses to occur. Some of the district's most important resources would be preserved, including the original portion of the resort community, the Chapman cabin, and the dominant area of montane alluvial forest currently occupied by buildings. Removal of buildings and restoration of pristine and, globally imperiled, montane alluvial forest would reinstate native vegetation to the district. Expected increases in visitation would add to National Park Service revenues and boost the local commercial economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While many components of the cultural landscape would remain, including the clubhouse and 15 contributing buildings, nearly two-thirds of the contributing buildings in the district would be removed. Additional sewage generated by the day use facility at the clubhouse would be added to the existing campground effluent, but this increase would have a negligible environmental impact. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090130, Vol. 1--436 pages and maps, Vol. 2--270 pages, April 22, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-07 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Historic District KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elkmont Historic District KW - Great Smoky Mountains National Park KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, ELKMONT HISTORIC DISTRICT, GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, TENNESSEE. AN - 36352788; 13852 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 1982 general management plan for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park of North Carolina and Tennessee is proposed to alter management of the Elkmont Historic District in the Tennessee section of the park. The historic district, which is located in Sevier County, six miles from park headquarters and eight miles from Gatlinburg, Tennessee, has European-American historical roots that extend back to the 1830s, when a subsistence agricultural settlement was created along Jakes Creek, a tributary of the Little River. By the 1880s, the first small-scale logging operations were underway in the area. Large-scale industrial logging began in the early 1900s, when the Little River Lumber Company was established in Townsend, Tennessee. By 1908, the company had constructed a rail line along the Little River from Townsend to the current site of Elkmont. In 1910 and 1912, two private resort communities were established on the outskirts of Elkmont and between 1910 and 1940, a social clubhouse, a hotel and annex, and several dozen individual vacation cabins were constructed as part of these two, separate social clubs. In 1926, legislation for the creation of a national park in the Smoky Mountains was passed by Congress and, in 1934, the park was officially established. Property owners in the two clubs were granted lifetime leases, which were subsequently exchanged for fixed-term leases, extended, and ultimately expired. Vacated buildings have remained empty pending a management decision. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would continue the current management direction, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would retain the Appalachian Clubhouse and 16 historic buildings in the area immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, known as Daisy Town. Fifteen of these 16 buildings are listed as contributing elements to the character of the district. The Daisy Town area represents the first portion of the resort community to be developed. Additionally, one cabin in the area known as Society Hill would be retained due to its association with David C. Chapman, an important figure in the national park movement during the 1920s and 1930s. In all areas where buildings were removed, native plant communities and natural systems would be restored. Chimneys and other cultural landscape features would remain unless retention of these features would present a safety hazard. The Appalachian Clubhouse would be rehabilitated on the interior for day use opportunities under special use permit. The restored cabin would serve as a museum community. Parking spaces for 106 vehicles would be provided to accommodate day users and to provide parking for trail users leaving from Elkmont. Sensitive plant communities, such as montane alluvial forest species, would be actively restored. Cost of implementing Alternative C is estimated at $6.3 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would strike a balance between natural and cultural resources while permitting traditional uses and additional new uses to occur. Some of the district's most important resources would be preserved, including the original portion of the resort community, the Chapman cabin, and the dominant area of montane alluvial forest currently occupied by buildings. Removal of buildings and restoration of pristine and, globally imperiled, montane alluvial forest would reinstate native vegetation to the district. Expected increases in visitation would add to National Park Service revenues and boost the local commercial economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: While many components of the cultural landscape would remain, including the clubhouse and 15 contributing buildings, nearly two-thirds of the contributing buildings in the district would be removed. Additional sewage generated by the day use facility at the clubhouse would be added to the existing campground effluent, but this increase would have a negligible environmental impact. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090130, Vol. 1--436 pages and maps, Vol. 2--270 pages, April 22, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 09-07 KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Forests KW - Hotels KW - Historic District KW - Leasing KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Elkmont Historic District KW - Great Smoky Mountains National Park KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+ELKMONT+HISTORIC+DISTRICT%2C+GREAT+SMOKY+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Gatlinburg, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 22, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825260; 13842-090119_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825200; 13842-090119_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825177; 13842-090119_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825157; 13842-090119_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825155; 13842-090119_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825153; 13842-090119_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 756825086; 13842-090119_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOVERNORS ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. AN - 36343866; 13842 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Governors Island National Monument in New York Harbor, New York is proposed. For over 200 years, Governors Island has played a vital role in the defense and development of the city. Its location in New York Harbor, a few hundred yards from the southern tip of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has influenced its use and role throughout history. The island's military history includes involvements in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. The national monument designation was established to preserve and protect Castle Williams and Fort Jay and to interpret them and their role in the defense of New York Harbor and the nation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would develop the monument as a Harbor Center, a hub of activities and a jumping off point for visitors wanting to explore New York Harbor. Working with other harbor-related organizations (national parks and local, regional, and international civic, educational, and research organizations) the National Park Service would develop a range of activities in Fort Jay and Castle Williams that interpret the key themes of the island and greater harbor. The park would collaborate and coordinate on harbor-related programs on and off the island that would help visitors understand the forts' military significance, the island's strategic location, and the ongoing ecological conservation efforts for the harbor and the re-visioning and redevelopment of the waterfront. The monument would become a primary stop on harbor ferry tours. Programs could include specialized boat tours of the harbor, educational programs that explore the harbor's history and ecology. A variety of programs, exhibits, and special events would be available in both forts. These activities would use the harbor to describe the island's history and significance, and the interplay over time between the harbor and the city's health and economy. Fort Jay could house harbor research, offices, and temporary lodging for fellowship and residency programs and provide a setting for harbor-related seminars and workshops. Castle Williams would be the island's main exhibition and interpretive center, showcasing multimedia programs and interactive exhibits that explore local, national, and global topics associated with the island and the harbor. One-time capital investment and annual operating costs are estimated at $50 million to $60 million and $11 million to $13 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to protecting and preserving Castle Williams and Fort Jay, the preferred management scheme would provide an opportunity to educate the public about the evolution of coastal defense and military communities as well as the harbor's rich history and ecology. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some disturbance to archaeological sites could occur during construction activities, as would runoff, carrying pollutants into the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Presidential Proclamations 7402 and 7647 and Public Law 105-33. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0092D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090119, Final EIS--300 pages, Comment Response Report--355 pages, April 15, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Coastal Zones KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Governors Island National Monument KW - New York KW - Presidential Proclamation 7402, Compliance KW - Presidential Proclamation 7647, Compliance KW - Public Law 105-33, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=GOVERNORS+ISLAND+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NEW+YORK+CITY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, New York, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG WALK NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LONG WALK NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825271; 13835-090112_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of the routes known as the Long Walk of the Mescalero Apache and the Navajo people as a national historic trail is evaluated. The proposed Long Walk National Historic Trail is comprised of approximately 1,350 miles of land routes and would recognize the events of 1863 and 1864 related to the U.S. Army's removal of the Mescalero Apache and Navajo people from their homelands to Fort Sumner and the Bosque Redondo Reservation in eastern New Mexico. There were multiple removals of thousands of people from tribal lands and several routes and variations of those routes were used. The proposed Long Walk National Historic Trail has met the three criteria defined in the National Trails System Act for qualification. Key issues raised during scoping include those related to the historic significance of the routes, the nature of the proposed commemoration, management of the proposed trail, and the positions of the Navajo Nation and Mescalero Apache tribe as to the designation of a Long Walk National Historic Trail. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would designate two national historic trails along with known routes of removal and known feeder routes. Automobile tour routes would be designated and visitors would have the opportunity to visit cultural/interpretive centers and museums and have access to sites within the reservations. Alternative C would designate one national historic trail with one name and only the main routes of removal would be designated. The common removal experiences of the Navajo and Mescalero Apache tribes would be emphasized. An automobile tour route would be designated. Under Alternative D, a grant program focusing on resource protection on tribal lands and on interpretation/education projects would be implemented. A national historic trail would not be designated. For Alternatives B and C, a comprehensive management plan would be developed as part of a financial feasibility study and, in the past, development of such plans for trails has cost between $300,000 and $500,000. Annual operating budgets for comparable trails range from $357,800 to $438,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of a national trail would recognize the national significance of the Long Walk routes and events and their far-reaching effects on the American Indian tribes of the Southwest, on the economy of the southwestern area, and in the government's policies towards the American Indians during the second half of the 19th century. The trail would have significant potential for interpreting the routes and events, including the practice of Indian slavery in New Mexico during the Civil War. Minor, long-term, beneficial effects would result from expanded opportunities for retail trade and visitor services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have minor, short-term, adverse, direct effects on vegetation and would contribute to the ongoing problem of soil erosion in the arid Southwest. Construction activities could result in short-term disturbance of wildlife and visitor use could result in temporary displacement of species. Facility development and the installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits would have long-term visual impact, but these effects could be minimized with appropriate siting. LEGAL MANDATES: Long Walk National Historic Trail Study Act of 2002 and National Trails System Act of 1968. JF - EPA number: 090112, 164 pages and maps, April 7, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 09-06 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Arizona KW - Long Walk National Historic Trail KW - New Mexico KW - Long Walk National Historic Trail Study Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG+WALK+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+ARIZONA+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=LONG+WALK+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+ARIZONA+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG WALK NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO. AN - 36349575; 13835 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of the routes known as the Long Walk of the Mescalero Apache and the Navajo people as a national historic trail is evaluated. The proposed Long Walk National Historic Trail is comprised of approximately 1,350 miles of land routes and would recognize the events of 1863 and 1864 related to the U.S. Army's removal of the Mescalero Apache and Navajo people from their homelands to Fort Sumner and the Bosque Redondo Reservation in eastern New Mexico. There were multiple removals of thousands of people from tribal lands and several routes and variations of those routes were used. The proposed Long Walk National Historic Trail has met the three criteria defined in the National Trails System Act for qualification. Key issues raised during scoping include those related to the historic significance of the routes, the nature of the proposed commemoration, management of the proposed trail, and the positions of the Navajo Nation and Mescalero Apache tribe as to the designation of a Long Walk National Historic Trail. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would designate two national historic trails along with known routes of removal and known feeder routes. Automobile tour routes would be designated and visitors would have the opportunity to visit cultural/interpretive centers and museums and have access to sites within the reservations. Alternative C would designate one national historic trail with one name and only the main routes of removal would be designated. The common removal experiences of the Navajo and Mescalero Apache tribes would be emphasized. An automobile tour route would be designated. Under Alternative D, a grant program focusing on resource protection on tribal lands and on interpretation/education projects would be implemented. A national historic trail would not be designated. For Alternatives B and C, a comprehensive management plan would be developed as part of a financial feasibility study and, in the past, development of such plans for trails has cost between $300,000 and $500,000. Annual operating budgets for comparable trails range from $357,800 to $438,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of a national trail would recognize the national significance of the Long Walk routes and events and their far-reaching effects on the American Indian tribes of the Southwest, on the economy of the southwestern area, and in the government's policies towards the American Indians during the second half of the 19th century. The trail would have significant potential for interpreting the routes and events, including the practice of Indian slavery in New Mexico during the Civil War. Minor, long-term, beneficial effects would result from expanded opportunities for retail trade and visitor services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have minor, short-term, adverse, direct effects on vegetation and would contribute to the ongoing problem of soil erosion in the arid Southwest. Construction activities could result in short-term disturbance of wildlife and visitor use could result in temporary displacement of species. Facility development and the installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits would have long-term visual impact, but these effects could be minimized with appropriate siting. LEGAL MANDATES: Long Walk National Historic Trail Study Act of 2002 and National Trails System Act of 1968. JF - EPA number: 090112, 164 pages and maps, April 7, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 09-06 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Arizona KW - Long Walk National Historic Trail KW - New Mexico KW - Long Walk National Historic Trail Study Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG+WALK+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+ARIZONA+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=LONG+WALK+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+ARIZONA+AND+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 7, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 756824665; 13823-090098_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service (47 percent of operations) and general aviation (52 percent of operations) and averages approximately 90 operations (takeoffs or landings) per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. The value of this grant funding to the airport fluctuates from year to year, but has averaged about $3 million annually over the past decade. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033 and would close when the agreement expired. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement under Alternative 2 would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Based on the average value of grant funding for the past decade, Alternative 1 would result in the loss of $60 million to the Jackson Hole Airport Board. Without this federal funding, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience for some users of Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. Under Alternative 2, the impacts would continue for the term of the use agreement. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. JF - EPA number: 090098, 412 pages, April 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 756824660; 13823-090098_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service (47 percent of operations) and general aviation (52 percent of operations) and averages approximately 90 operations (takeoffs or landings) per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. The value of this grant funding to the airport fluctuates from year to year, but has averaged about $3 million annually over the past decade. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033 and would close when the agreement expired. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement under Alternative 2 would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Based on the average value of grant funding for the past decade, Alternative 1 would result in the loss of $60 million to the Jackson Hole Airport Board. Without this federal funding, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience for some users of Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. Under Alternative 2, the impacts would continue for the term of the use agreement. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. JF - EPA number: 090098, 412 pages, April 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 16378831; 13823 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service (47 percent of operations) and general aviation (52 percent of operations) and averages approximately 90 operations (takeoffs or landings) per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. The value of this grant funding to the airport fluctuates from year to year, but has averaged about $3 million annually over the past decade. Two alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033 and would close when the agreement expired. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement under Alternative 2 would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Based on the average value of grant funding for the past decade, Alternative 1 would result in the loss of $60 million to the Jackson Hole Airport Board. Without this federal funding, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience for some users of Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. Under Alternative 2, the impacts would continue for the term of the use agreement. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. JF - EPA number: 090098, 412 pages, April 3, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 756826097; 13813-090088_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Federal leasing of the Greens Hollow Coal Lease Tract within the Manti-La Sal and Fishlake National Forests, Sanpete and Sevier counties, Utah is proposed. Ark Land Company has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease and mine the coal reserves to lengthen the production life of their existing SUFCO mine. The Greens Hollow tract encompasses 6,175 acres of federal coal estate and is located in the Muddy Creek and North Fork Quitchupah Creek drainages approximately 10.5 miles west of Emery and five miles north of the SUFCO mine portal in Convulsion Canyon. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to geologic subsidence, water quality, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, recreation, and air quality. Three alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make the Greens Hollow Coal Lease Tract available for competitive leasing and underground coal mining within the entire tract, extending the life of the SUFCO mine by approximately 8.8 years. Proposed underground works in the SUFCO mine would be extended for long-wall or full extraction mining of an estimated 56.5 million tons of recoverable coal. No expansion of existing surface portal facilities would be required and water discharge would be from existing permitted discharge points in Quitchupah Creek. Support elements of the proposed action would consist of two ventilation shafts, power transmission for the ventilation fan and the mine itself, and road access. The overhead electrical power line would extend approximately five miles from the existing Link Canyon substation to the proposed southern vent shaft site. The buried height of the power poles would be about 61 feet with the power line at least 25 feet above the ground. Alternative 3 would modify the proposed action by avoiding the subsidence of areas of substantial surface impact and would extend the life of the SUFCO mine by approximately 8.7 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide appropriate opportunities for leasing and development of Federal coal resources under the Manti-La Sal and Fishlake National Forests. The additional minable coal would extend the life of the SUFCO mining operations thus continuing 363 jobs at the mine, 279 truck driving jobs, and 980 indirect mine support jobs. Revenues generated from property, income, sales taxes, and mine royalties would continue for approximately nine years. Coal valued at $1.47 billion would be mined and total royalties and tax revenues would amount to $194 million. The annual production of the SUFCO mine is sufficient for generating electrical energy for the needs of approximately 1.34 million households. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Predicted subsidence under the proposed action would be up to approximately eight feet in the northern half of the tract and up to 4.3 feet in the southern half. Predicted tensile strains would cause surface fractures, and some of these would remain open. The maximum probable seismic event would be 3.4 on the Richter scale where mining occurs under thicker cover. A total of 19 springs would be at risk of impacts from subsidence including seven high value springs. Flow reductions caused by diversion of water to underground workings or streambed subsidence would impact Colorado River cutthroat trout and riparian habitat. Construction and drilling noise could disrupt flammulated owls, greater sage grouse, northern goshawks, three-toed woodpeckers, spotted bats, and Townsend's big-eared bats. Subsidence and other mining-caused changes to surface and ground water could affect riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). JF - EPA number: 090088, 308 pages, March 24, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-950 KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Noise KW - Sediment KW - Seismology KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36344388; 13813 AB - PURPOSE: Federal leasing of the Greens Hollow Coal Lease Tract within the Manti-La Sal and Fishlake National Forests, Sanpete and Sevier counties, Utah is proposed. Ark Land Company has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease and mine the coal reserves to lengthen the production life of their existing SUFCO mine. The Greens Hollow tract encompasses 6,175 acres of federal coal estate and is located in the Muddy Creek and North Fork Quitchupah Creek drainages approximately 10.5 miles west of Emery and five miles north of the SUFCO mine portal in Convulsion Canyon. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to geologic subsidence, water quality, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, recreation, and air quality. Three alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would make the Greens Hollow Coal Lease Tract available for competitive leasing and underground coal mining within the entire tract, extending the life of the SUFCO mine by approximately 8.8 years. Proposed underground works in the SUFCO mine would be extended for long-wall or full extraction mining of an estimated 56.5 million tons of recoverable coal. No expansion of existing surface portal facilities would be required and water discharge would be from existing permitted discharge points in Quitchupah Creek. Support elements of the proposed action would consist of two ventilation shafts, power transmission for the ventilation fan and the mine itself, and road access. The overhead electrical power line would extend approximately five miles from the existing Link Canyon substation to the proposed southern vent shaft site. The buried height of the power poles would be about 61 feet with the power line at least 25 feet above the ground. Alternative 3 would modify the proposed action by avoiding the subsidence of areas of substantial surface impact and would extend the life of the SUFCO mine by approximately 8.7 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide appropriate opportunities for leasing and development of Federal coal resources under the Manti-La Sal and Fishlake National Forests. The additional minable coal would extend the life of the SUFCO mining operations thus continuing 363 jobs at the mine, 279 truck driving jobs, and 980 indirect mine support jobs. Revenues generated from property, income, sales taxes, and mine royalties would continue for approximately nine years. Coal valued at $1.47 billion would be mined and total royalties and tax revenues would amount to $194 million. The annual production of the SUFCO mine is sufficient for generating electrical energy for the needs of approximately 1.34 million households. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Predicted subsidence under the proposed action would be up to approximately eight feet in the northern half of the tract and up to 4.3 feet in the southern half. Predicted tensile strains would cause surface fractures, and some of these would remain open. The maximum probable seismic event would be 3.4 on the Richter scale where mining occurs under thicker cover. A total of 19 springs would be at risk of impacts from subsidence including seven high value springs. Flow reductions caused by diversion of water to underground workings or streambed subsidence would impact Colorado River cutthroat trout and riparian habitat. Construction and drilling noise could disrupt flammulated owls, greater sage grouse, northern goshawks, three-toed woodpeckers, spotted bats, and Townsend's big-eared bats. Subsidence and other mining-caused changes to surface and ground water could affect riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). JF - EPA number: 090088, 308 pages, March 24, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-950 KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geology KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Noise KW - Sediment KW - Seismology KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Manti-La Sal National Forest KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224038; 13812-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224033; 13812-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224027; 13812-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224022; 13812-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224016; 13812-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224014; 13812-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224009; 13812-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224006; 13812-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 868224003; 13812-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. AN - 36349594; 13812 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along the Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on air travel indicate that an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. In addition to lagging capacity, I-15 has been the site of frequent accidents In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers alternatives for constructing a privately financed steel-on-wheel high-speed train and a No Action Alternative. In addition, two rail alignment alternatives are considered. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include the following facilities: passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two train technologies are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) or electric multi0le unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology constituting a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would displace 649 acres of desert tortoise habitat permanently and 832 acres of tortoise habitat temporarily. The rail line would traverse 24 streams and present an additional barrier to wildlife movement. Mohave ground squirrel habitat affected would include 845 acres of permanently displaced habitat and 803 acres of temporarily displaced habitat. The project would also result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and 20 to 24 archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way would encroach on nearly 30 acres of 100-year floodplain and 1,128 to 11,035 linear feet of stream channel Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase significantly in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 31 to 83 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards, and 19 to 233 sites would experience excessive vibratory impacts. Construction workers would encounter four to six hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090087, Volume 1--821 pages Volume 2--998 pages, March 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756825701; 13809-090084_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Extended mining and processing of gold ore at the Goldstrike Mine, operated by Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., in Eureka and Elko counties, Nevada is proposed in this final Supplement to the final EIS of June 1991 on the development of the mine. The mine is located in north-central Nevada, approximately 25 miles northwest of Carlin. The proposed action would include expansion of the existing Betze Pit, construction of the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road, construction of the Goldstrike No. 3 Tailings Facility, and extension of operations at the mine for another four years, with four additional years being required for site closure and reclamation. The scheme would use some of the existing primary facilities, including ore processing facilities and ancillary support facilities. The resulting facilities and activities are located on lands administered by the Elko Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and on privately owned lands. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses, a No Action Alternative and the Bazza Waste Rock Alternative, Under the No Action Alternative, the applicant would continue to recover gold at the existing facilities as currently authorized by the BLM. Under the Bazza Alternative, the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road would not be constructed; the existing Bazza Facility would continue to be used and not fully reclaimed until 2016. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mine life would be extended another four years through 2015. In addition to providing additional gold for domestic consumption, gold from the mine could become part of the increasingly important export value of gold to foreign countries from the United States. Extension of the mine life would provide for extended employment for 1,600 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economy. Annual tax revenues anticipated from the proposed action would include $11.4 million from net proceeds taxes, $21.6 million from sales and use taxes, $600,000 from business activity tax, and $3.4 million from ad valorem property taxes for the state and counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed actions would result in disturbance for 1,180 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, of which 494 are public lands administered by BLM and 686 acres of private land. Approximately 943 acres of low-density mule deer range and bird habitat consisting primarily of sagebrush shrubland; 101 acres of this disturbed area would be associated with pit expansion and would not be reclaimed. Three federally protected bird species would be affected. The expanded mine would result in the generation and disposal of 315 million tons of waste rock and 12.44 million tons of tailings, the removal of 500,000 tons of Carlin Formation material suitable for reclamation use, and the extraction of 12.44 million tons of ore. Mined ore would be permanently removed from existing reserves. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0402D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0019D, Volume 15, Number 1 and 91-0211F, Volume 15, Number 4, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 00-0360D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0154F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090084, 91 pages and maps, March 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-GI-O9/10+1793 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756825253; 13809-090084_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Extended mining and processing of gold ore at the Goldstrike Mine, operated by Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., in Eureka and Elko counties, Nevada is proposed in this final Supplement to the final EIS of June 1991 on the development of the mine. The mine is located in north-central Nevada, approximately 25 miles northwest of Carlin. The proposed action would include expansion of the existing Betze Pit, construction of the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road, construction of the Goldstrike No. 3 Tailings Facility, and extension of operations at the mine for another four years, with four additional years being required for site closure and reclamation. The scheme would use some of the existing primary facilities, including ore processing facilities and ancillary support facilities. The resulting facilities and activities are located on lands administered by the Elko Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and on privately owned lands. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses, a No Action Alternative and the Bazza Waste Rock Alternative, Under the No Action Alternative, the applicant would continue to recover gold at the existing facilities as currently authorized by the BLM. Under the Bazza Alternative, the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road would not be constructed; the existing Bazza Facility would continue to be used and not fully reclaimed until 2016. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mine life would be extended another four years through 2015. In addition to providing additional gold for domestic consumption, gold from the mine could become part of the increasingly important export value of gold to foreign countries from the United States. Extension of the mine life would provide for extended employment for 1,600 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economy. Annual tax revenues anticipated from the proposed action would include $11.4 million from net proceeds taxes, $21.6 million from sales and use taxes, $600,000 from business activity tax, and $3.4 million from ad valorem property taxes for the state and counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed actions would result in disturbance for 1,180 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, of which 494 are public lands administered by BLM and 686 acres of private land. Approximately 943 acres of low-density mule deer range and bird habitat consisting primarily of sagebrush shrubland; 101 acres of this disturbed area would be associated with pit expansion and would not be reclaimed. Three federally protected bird species would be affected. The expanded mine would result in the generation and disposal of 315 million tons of waste rock and 12.44 million tons of tailings, the removal of 500,000 tons of Carlin Formation material suitable for reclamation use, and the extraction of 12.44 million tons of ore. Mined ore would be permanently removed from existing reserves. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0402D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0019D, Volume 15, Number 1 and 91-0211F, Volume 15, Number 4, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 00-0360D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0154F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090084, 91 pages and maps, March 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-GI-O9/10+1793 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 756825080; 13809-090084_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Extended mining and processing of gold ore at the Goldstrike Mine, operated by Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., in Eureka and Elko counties, Nevada is proposed in this final Supplement to the final EIS of June 1991 on the development of the mine. The mine is located in north-central Nevada, approximately 25 miles northwest of Carlin. The proposed action would include expansion of the existing Betze Pit, construction of the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road, construction of the Goldstrike No. 3 Tailings Facility, and extension of operations at the mine for another four years, with four additional years being required for site closure and reclamation. The scheme would use some of the existing primary facilities, including ore processing facilities and ancillary support facilities. The resulting facilities and activities are located on lands administered by the Elko Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and on privately owned lands. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses, a No Action Alternative and the Bazza Waste Rock Alternative, Under the No Action Alternative, the applicant would continue to recover gold at the existing facilities as currently authorized by the BLM. Under the Bazza Alternative, the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road would not be constructed; the existing Bazza Facility would continue to be used and not fully reclaimed until 2016. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mine life would be extended another four years through 2015. In addition to providing additional gold for domestic consumption, gold from the mine could become part of the increasingly important export value of gold to foreign countries from the United States. Extension of the mine life would provide for extended employment for 1,600 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economy. Annual tax revenues anticipated from the proposed action would include $11.4 million from net proceeds taxes, $21.6 million from sales and use taxes, $600,000 from business activity tax, and $3.4 million from ad valorem property taxes for the state and counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed actions would result in disturbance for 1,180 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, of which 494 are public lands administered by BLM and 686 acres of private land. Approximately 943 acres of low-density mule deer range and bird habitat consisting primarily of sagebrush shrubland; 101 acres of this disturbed area would be associated with pit expansion and would not be reclaimed. Three federally protected bird species would be affected. The expanded mine would result in the generation and disposal of 315 million tons of waste rock and 12.44 million tons of tailings, the removal of 500,000 tons of Carlin Formation material suitable for reclamation use, and the extraction of 12.44 million tons of ore. Mined ore would be permanently removed from existing reserves. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0402D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0019D, Volume 15, Number 1 and 91-0211F, Volume 15, Number 4, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 00-0360D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0154F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090084, 91 pages and maps, March 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-GI-O9/10+1793 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BETZE PROJECT, ELKO AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36344354; 13809 AB - PURPOSE: Extended mining and processing of gold ore at the Goldstrike Mine, operated by Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., in Eureka and Elko counties, Nevada is proposed in this final Supplement to the final EIS of June 1991 on the development of the mine. The mine is located in north-central Nevada, approximately 25 miles northwest of Carlin. The proposed action would include expansion of the existing Betze Pit, construction of the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road, construction of the Goldstrike No. 3 Tailings Facility, and extension of operations at the mine for another four years, with four additional years being required for site closure and reclamation. The scheme would use some of the existing primary facilities, including ore processing facilities and ancillary support facilities. The resulting facilities and activities are located on lands administered by the Elko Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and on privately owned lands. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS addresses, a No Action Alternative and the Bazza Waste Rock Alternative, Under the No Action Alternative, the applicant would continue to recover gold at the existing facilities as currently authorized by the BLM. Under the Bazza Alternative, the Clydesdale Waste Rock Facility and haul Road would not be constructed; the existing Bazza Facility would continue to be used and not fully reclaimed until 2016. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mine life would be extended another four years through 2015. In addition to providing additional gold for domestic consumption, gold from the mine could become part of the increasingly important export value of gold to foreign countries from the United States. Extension of the mine life would provide for extended employment for 1,600 workers and otherwise contribute to the local economy. Annual tax revenues anticipated from the proposed action would include $11.4 million from net proceeds taxes, $21.6 million from sales and use taxes, $600,000 from business activity tax, and $3.4 million from ad valorem property taxes for the state and counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Proposed actions would result in disturbance for 1,180 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, of which 494 are public lands administered by BLM and 686 acres of private land. Approximately 943 acres of low-density mule deer range and bird habitat consisting primarily of sagebrush shrubland; 101 acres of this disturbed area would be associated with pit expansion and would not be reclaimed. Three federally protected bird species would be affected. The expanded mine would result in the generation and disposal of 315 million tons of waste rock and 12.44 million tons of tailings, the removal of 500,000 tons of Carlin Formation material suitable for reclamation use, and the extraction of 12.44 million tons of ore. Mined ore would be permanently removed from existing reserves. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0402D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0019D, Volume 15, Number 1 and 91-0211F, Volume 15, Number 4, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 00-0360D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 03-0154F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090084, 91 pages and maps, March 19, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-GI-O9/10+1793 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Humboldt River KW - Nevada UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=BETZE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824853; 13800-090075_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824836; 13800-090075_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824786; 13800-090075_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824743; 13800-090075_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824735; 13800-090075_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824727; 13800-090075_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - MARIN HEADLANDS AND FORT BAKER TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824617; 13800-090075_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a transportation infrastructure and management plan for the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker area of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (NRA) in Marin County, California is proposed. The NRA encompasses 79,000 acres of land and water, including approximately 50 miles of bay and ocean shoreline, Fort Point National Historic Site, Muir Woods National Monument, Alcatraz Island, and the Presidio of San Francisco. The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker are located in the San Francisco Bay area at the north end of Golden Gate Bridge, across the bay from San Francisco. The 2,500-acre Headlands span the southern tip of the Marin Peninsula, from US 101 to the western coastline. Fort Baker is 335-acre site directly adjacent to the Headlands on the east site of US 101. In June 2000, the National Park Service initiated a transportation management study to evaluate current transportation conditions in the study area. Most of the asphalt roadway paving in the areas is more than 30 years old, resulting in pavement cracking, failing, and breakage. Only 12 percent of the paved roads in the areas appear to be in good condition, while 67 percent are in poor condition. Parking facilities suffer from poor pavement conditions and cannot meet capacity needs. Drainage features associated with the road system are likewise deteriorating. Based on roadway studies, conceptual approaches to address various transportation issues have been developed, along with a number of alternative plans to implement those approaches. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to coordination of the transportation plan with other plans, access to the NRA, safety, signing, parking fees, vehicular restrictions and road closures, natural and historic resources preservation, special events capacity, and funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are analyzed in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would rehabilitate or reconstruct roadway infrastructure to move the appearance of the road corridors and parking areas as close as possible to the historic character of the areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be improved by closing and rerouting existing trails and constructing new trails. Transit service improvements would also be implemented at various locations. Construction costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.9 million. Annual cost estimates for additional transit operations range from $1.4 million to $1.6 million and, for car-free days, from $134,0000 to $157,500. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for enhanced multimodal access to the Marin Headlands and Fort Baker. Additional transit options would be provided to and within both areas to improve access. Long-term reduction in erosion would result in significant improvement of coastal resources associated with the NRA. The safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclist visiting the park would improve significantly, and park administration would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Excavation of existing rock cuts would be required to accommodate roadway widening in certain areas. Soil erosion on the road and trail system would continue to cause long-term, moderate soil and vegetation losses and sedimentation of receiving streams and the bay. Construction of transportation facilities would directly displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Special status species that would be likely to be affected include mission blue butterfly, tidewater goby and steelhead, California red-legged frog, California brown pelican, western snowy plover, salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle, salt marsh common yellowthroat, Allen's hummingbird, and various species of bats. Historic resources would be affected by construction activities and the presence of the improved transportation infrastructure, LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0266D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090075, Final EIS--657 pages and maps, Appendices--271 pages and maps, March 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bays KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Districts KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARIN+HEADLANDS+AND+FORT+BAKER+TRANSPORTATION+INFRASTRUCTURE+AND+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MARIN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 756825129; 13796-090071_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 756825082; 13796-090071_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 756824863; 13796-090071_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36346098; 13796 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131490; 14487-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest System lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Under all the action alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would designate 2,454 miles of road and would maintain 528 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. Opportunities for mountain bike trail riding would be increased. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090055, Draft EIS--232 pages, Appendices--163 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, February 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-27 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131288; 14487-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest System lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Under all the action alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would designate 2,454 miles of road and would maintain 528 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. Opportunities for mountain bike trail riding would be increased. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090055, Draft EIS--232 pages, Appendices--163 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, February 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-27 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT, GUNNISON, DELTA, HINSDALE, AND SAGUACHE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 754908584; 14487 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin and North Fork Basin of Colorado is proposed. The analysis area includes the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG). Prior to interim travel restrictions implemented in 2001, there were differing management directions regarding motorized travel for different areas on BLM lands and National Forest System lands. Some areas were open to cross-country travel, some areas restricted travel to existing routes, and some areas were closed to motorized travel. This management prescription led to enforcement problems and did not adequately prevent resource damage due to inappropriate motorized travel across federal lands. Also, during this period, the popularity of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) increased significantly. The proliferation of user-created roads and trails became problematic for resource managers and there were public concerns because of increasing user conflicts in popular areas, impacts on hunting, and a changing recreational spectrum on public lands. The Gunnison travel planning process is now implementing specific route-by-route analysis, evaluations, and eventually a travel management decision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreational experience and opportunity, route integrity, resource protection, access, safety, maintenance and funding, enforcement and education, future demands, and concerns regarding the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Existing conditions resulting from the 2001 interim restrictions are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Under all the action alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. The analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Alternative 2, which is the proposed action, would designate 2,454 miles of road and would maintain 528 miles of trail open to the public for motorized travel. The types of motorized vehicles allowed to travel on these open routes depends upon the design, width, and optimal recreation opportunity attributed to these trails and roads. The range of motorized vehicle types include full-sized licensed highway vehicles, off-highway vehicles (OHVs) greater than 50 inches in width, ATVs, OHVs 50 inches or less in width, and single track motorcycles. Non-motorized vehicles (mechanized travel) would also be allowed on these open routes designated for motorized travel. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. The U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) would be implemented while providing for a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities and allowing for motorized access to dispersed recreation sites. Opportunities for mountain bike trail riding would be increased. Transportation system changes would result in lower annual maintenance costs and lower long-term costs even when the costs of road closures are factored in. Air quality parameters would improve under all the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV and ATV users would be more restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities as compared to the existing situation. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles would continue to have adverse effects with respect to air quality, carbon emissions, and particulates. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090055, Draft EIS--232 pages, Appendices--163 pages, Maps--CD-ROM, February 25, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754908584?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GUNNISON+BASIN+FEDERAL+LANDS+TRAVEL+MANAGEMENT%2C+GUNNISON%2C+DELTA%2C+HINSDALE%2C+AND+SAGUACHE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-27 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223998; 13783-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 28 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223991; 13783-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223983; 13783-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 26 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223977; 13783-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 25 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223971; 13783-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223966; 13783-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223960; 13783-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223954; 13783-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223947; 13783-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223937; 13783-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223928; 13783-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223924; 13784-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223921; 13784-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223915; 13784-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223428; 13783-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223401; 13783-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223373; 13783-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223359; 13783-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223330; 13783-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223308; 13783-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223290; 13783-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223273; 13783-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223250; 13783-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223229; 13783-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223210; 13783-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223182; 13783-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223151; 13783-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223131; 13783-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222961; 13783-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222945; 13783-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222557; 13783-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222538; 13784-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222520; 13784-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222495; 13784-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344473; 13784 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project to provide water quality enhancement for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, California is proposed. The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary provides essential habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife, including more than 30 protected species, and is the critical hub in the conveyance of drinking water supplies to more than two-thirds of the California population and irrigation supplies to 7 million acres of agricultural lands. California's two largest water distribution systems, the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR), and the California Department of Water Projects (SWP), operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), pump water out of the southwestern delta to agricultural and urban contractors in the bay area and in central and southern regions of the state. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir is an off-stream storage reservoir located in the foothills west of the Delta in Contra Costa County at the eastern edge of the San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) currently pumps water from the Delta through fish screens into this 100,000-acre-foot (TAF) capacity reservoir allowing CCWD to improve the water quality delivered to its customers and to adjust the timing of its Delta water diversions to accommodate the life cycles of aquatic species. Four action alternatives that present different combinations of facility and water delivery options for expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir and a No Project/No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Action alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase the capacity to 275 TAF; alternative 4 would increase capacity to 160 TAF. Under alternatives 1 and 2, CCWD would expand the existing reservoir and add a new South Bay Connection to use the Los Vaqueros system to provide water to South Bay water agencies, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), that otherwise would receive all of their Delta supplies through the existing SWP and CVP export pumps. The new and expanded facilities would be operated in coordination with BR and DWR to shift Delta pumping for the three South Bay water agencies from the CVP and SWP Delta export pumps to the expanded Los Vaqueros reservoir system. Alternative 1 is considered the proposed project and includes the largest reservoir expansion and greatest extent of associated facilities. Alternative 4 represents the smallest reservoir expansion with the fewest new or expanded facilities. At this stage of planning and evaluation, none of the alternatives has been designated as the Preferred Alternative because related engineering, economic, and financial feasibility analyses are not yet complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the expanded storage coupled with shifting the pumping location to state-of-the-art fish screens would provide substantial benefits of protecting fish and reducing fish losses, developing and storing environmental water supplies, and improving Bay Area water supply reliability. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dewatering of the cofferdam for the new Delta Intake could result in localized, short-term stranding of fish. Construction would have impacts on potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (approximately 1,500 acres), habitat for burrowing owl (1,126 acres), California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander aquatic habitat (11 ponds), Construction and operation activities would result in direct and indirect impacts on existing populations of and habitat for golden eagle, bald eagle, and Swainsons hawk and new powerlines could affect migratory birds. The new Delta Intake and Pump Station would result in permanent conversion of about 22 acres of Important Farmland. Construction would require closure of Los Vaqueros Watershed to the public during the 3-year construction period and additional 2-year restriction for water-related activities causing short-term loss of recreation areas and activities provided in the watershed. Potential to impact 41 known historical resources, the Reburial site, and the Kellogg Creek Historic District due to construction and operation. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 090051, Volume 1--501 pages and maps, Volume 2--681 pages and maps, Volume 3A--261 pages, Volume 3B--771 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-11 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - San Francisco Bay KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Project Authorization KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+VAQUEROS+RESERVOIR+EXPANSION+PROJECT+TO+PROVIDE+WATER+QUALITY+ENHANCEMENT+FOR+THE+SACRAMENTO-SAN+JOAQUIN+DELTA+ESTUARY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36343599; 13783 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TIMBER MOUNTAIN RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, MEDFORD DISTRICT, OREGON. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TIMBER MOUNTAIN RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, MEDFORD DISTRICT, OREGON. AN - 756825238; 13779-090046_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a site specific (recreation management plan} for the Timber Mountain Recreation Management Area (RMA) is proposed. The Timber Mountain planning area is situated to the west of the city of Jacksonville, and south of the Interstate 5 corridor in Jackson County, southwestern Oregon. The 2008 Medford District Resource Management Plan designated approximately 15,114 acres in the Timber Mountain area to be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area with an off-highway vehicle (OHV) focus, but did not develop route designations for a managed trail system. The Timber Mountain RMA is located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands intermingled with privately owned lands; and OHV enthusiasts have used this area for about 40 years with usage increasing in recent years. There are currently no fully developed staging areas on BLM-administered land and access to the Timber Mountain planning area is occurring from roads with public access and some roads without public access rights. Opportunities exist to work with adjacent private landowners to manage OHV use across land ownership boundaries. There are an estimated 375.9 miles of OHV routes (trails and roads) on both private and public land within the planning area. Key issues identified during scoping include effects of plan alternatives on soil, water quality, riparian habitat, threatened and endangered species, and noise levels for nearby residents. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, represents the current management situation in the Timber Mountain RMA. Alternative 2 would provide for well dispersed OHV use throughout the planning area, while substantially reducing the trail density. Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 in the miles of OHV routes designated for use, but would provide for the installation of gates on certain roads to limit standard passenger vehicle entry. Alternative 4 would manage an OHV trail system on BLM-administered lands only or those under existing legal agreements. Alternative 5 would provide for OHV use at a substantially reduced level, reducing or eliminating use in watersheds with Coho Critical Habitat, and maintaining use at further distances from rural residential areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMA would provide for a quality OHV recreation experience while contributing to the improvement of water quality and the restoration of aquatic habitat within and down stream of the planning area. The interests of adjacent rural residents would be addressed and conflicts among users reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV users and off-road motorcyclists would be somewhat restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities and their enjoyment of those opportunities in some areas. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles within the forest would continue to destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, exacerbating erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows, disturb terrestrial and avian wildlife, and result in conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090046, 316 pages, February 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Medford Resource Management Area KW - Oregon KW - Timber Mountain Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TIMBER+MOUNTAIN+RECREATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=TIMBER+MOUNTAIN+RECREATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TIMBER MOUNTAIN RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, MEDFORD DISTRICT, OREGON. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TIMBER MOUNTAIN RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, MEDFORD DISTRICT, OREGON. AN - 756825192; 13779-090046_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a site specific (recreation management plan} for the Timber Mountain Recreation Management Area (RMA) is proposed. The Timber Mountain planning area is situated to the west of the city of Jacksonville, and south of the Interstate 5 corridor in Jackson County, southwestern Oregon. The 2008 Medford District Resource Management Plan designated approximately 15,114 acres in the Timber Mountain area to be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area with an off-highway vehicle (OHV) focus, but did not develop route designations for a managed trail system. The Timber Mountain RMA is located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands intermingled with privately owned lands; and OHV enthusiasts have used this area for about 40 years with usage increasing in recent years. There are currently no fully developed staging areas on BLM-administered land and access to the Timber Mountain planning area is occurring from roads with public access and some roads without public access rights. Opportunities exist to work with adjacent private landowners to manage OHV use across land ownership boundaries. There are an estimated 375.9 miles of OHV routes (trails and roads) on both private and public land within the planning area. Key issues identified during scoping include effects of plan alternatives on soil, water quality, riparian habitat, threatened and endangered species, and noise levels for nearby residents. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, represents the current management situation in the Timber Mountain RMA. Alternative 2 would provide for well dispersed OHV use throughout the planning area, while substantially reducing the trail density. Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 in the miles of OHV routes designated for use, but would provide for the installation of gates on certain roads to limit standard passenger vehicle entry. Alternative 4 would manage an OHV trail system on BLM-administered lands only or those under existing legal agreements. Alternative 5 would provide for OHV use at a substantially reduced level, reducing or eliminating use in watersheds with Coho Critical Habitat, and maintaining use at further distances from rural residential areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMA would provide for a quality OHV recreation experience while contributing to the improvement of water quality and the restoration of aquatic habitat within and down stream of the planning area. The interests of adjacent rural residents would be addressed and conflicts among users reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV users and off-road motorcyclists would be somewhat restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities and their enjoyment of those opportunities in some areas. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles within the forest would continue to destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, exacerbating erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows, disturb terrestrial and avian wildlife, and result in conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090046, 316 pages, February 19, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Medford Resource Management Area KW - Oregon KW - Timber Mountain Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TIMBER+MOUNTAIN+RECREATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=TIMBER+MOUNTAIN+RECREATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TIMBER MOUNTAIN RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, MEDFORD DISTRICT, OREGON. AN - 16377442; 13779 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a site specific (recreation management plan} for the Timber Mountain Recreation Management Area (RMA) is proposed. The Timber Mountain planning area is situated to the west of the city of Jacksonville, and south of the Interstate 5 corridor in Jackson County, southwestern Oregon. The 2008 Medford District Resource Management Plan designated approximately 15,114 acres in the Timber Mountain area to be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area with an off-highway vehicle (OHV) focus, but did not develop route designations for a managed trail system. The Timber Mountain RMA is located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands intermingled with privately owned lands; and OHV enthusiasts have used this area for about 40 years with usage increasing in recent years. There are currently no fully developed staging areas on BLM-administered land and access to the Timber Mountain planning area is occurring from roads with public access and some roads without public access rights. Opportunities exist to work with adjacent private landowners to manage OHV use across land ownership boundaries. There are an estimated 375.9 miles of OHV routes (trails and roads) on both private and public land within the planning area. Key issues identified during scoping include effects of plan alternatives on soil, water quality, riparian habitat, threatened and endangered species, and noise levels for nearby residents. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, represents the current management situation in the Timber Mountain RMA. Alternative 2 would provide for well dispersed OHV use throughout the planning area, while substantially reducing the trail density. Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 in the miles of OHV routes designated for use, but would provide for the installation of gates on certain roads to limit standard passenger vehicle entry. Alternative 4 would manage an OHV trail system on BLM-administered lands only or those under existing legal agreements. Alternative 5 would provide for OHV use at a substantially reduced level, reducing or eliminating use in watersheds with Coho Critical Habitat, and maintaining use at further distances from rural residential areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMA would provide for a quality OHV recreation experience while contributing to the improvement of water quality and the restoration of aquatic habitat within and down stream of the planning area. The interests of adjacent rural residents would be addressed and conflicts among users reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: OHV users and off-road motorcyclists would be somewhat restricted with respect to their access to recreational opportunities and their enjoyment of those opportunities in some areas. Continued use of OHVs and other wheeled motor vehicles within the forest would continue to destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, exacerbating erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows, disturb terrestrial and avian wildlife, and result in conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreationists. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090046, 316 pages, February 19, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Medford Resource Management Area KW - Oregon KW - Timber Mountain Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TIMBER+MOUNTAIN+RECREATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=TIMBER+MOUNTAIN+RECREATION+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MEDFORD+DISTRICT%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 19, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO. AN - 756825349; 13777-090044_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications of the operations of the Aspinall Unit, a Colorado River Storage Project in western Colorado, to provide sufficient releases of water to avoid jeopardy to four endangered fish species are proposed. Flow recommendations for the Gunnison River, in concert with other program actions, are intended to avoid jeopardy and assist in recovery of the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and humpback chub, which exist only in the Colorado River Basin and have been impacted by water development. The effects of the proposed action would encompass the Aspinall Unit (including Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal dams, power plants, and reservoirs) and upstream resources, Curecanti National Recreation Area, the Gunniston River downstream to its confluence with the Colorado River, and the downstream Colorado River. Four action alternatives, Risk of Spill (Alternative A), Fish Peak with Duration (Alternative B), Fish Peak with Increased Duration (Alternative C), and Fish Peak with Revised Target (Alternative D) are analyzed and compared to a No Action Alternative in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative. Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in significant long-term changes in release patterns but would continue operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet authorized purposes and to honor existing water and power contracts. Blue Mesa and Morrow point power plants would continue to provide peaking power operations and Crystal Dam and Reservoir would continue to reregulate upstream releases and to provide uniform downstream flows. The downstream of Crystal Dam minimum flow of 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) would continue, excepting during emergencies and extended droughts, when flow could be reduced to a minimum of 200 cfs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Action alternatives would benefit downstream endangered fish and their habitat and more natural flows would help maintain the river channel and associated riparian areas in the Black Canyon, Gunnison Gorge, and areas downstream. The preferred alternative would contribute to stabilizing native biodiversity in the Gunnison River and flow recommendations would reverse some of the hydrologic effects of the dam and its operations to allow recovery of the native razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have minor to moderate adverse effects to recreation including a projected mean reduction in summer visitation to Blue Mesa Reservoir of 7.23 percent relative to the No Action Alternative, and higher spring flows in May and June would tend to reduce recreation use in the Black Canyon, Gunnison Gorge, and downstream. All action alternatives result in a loss of electric generation capacity and an economic loss from the Aspinall power system on an average annual basis. Alternative B would reduce total electric generation by an average of 9,914 MWh per year and reduce total economic value by an average of 1.47 percent annually. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat, 1107). JF - EPA number: 090044, Draft EIS--161 pages, Appendices--185 pages, February 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-02 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Gunnison River KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ASPINALL+UNIT+OPERATIONS%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+GUNNISON+RIVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ASPINALL+UNIT+OPERATIONS%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+GUNNISON+RIVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO. AN - 756825264; 13777-090044_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications of the operations of the Aspinall Unit, a Colorado River Storage Project in western Colorado, to provide sufficient releases of water to avoid jeopardy to four endangered fish species are proposed. Flow recommendations for the Gunnison River, in concert with other program actions, are intended to avoid jeopardy and assist in recovery of the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and humpback chub, which exist only in the Colorado River Basin and have been impacted by water development. The effects of the proposed action would encompass the Aspinall Unit (including Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal dams, power plants, and reservoirs) and upstream resources, Curecanti National Recreation Area, the Gunniston River downstream to its confluence with the Colorado River, and the downstream Colorado River. Four action alternatives, Risk of Spill (Alternative A), Fish Peak with Duration (Alternative B), Fish Peak with Increased Duration (Alternative C), and Fish Peak with Revised Target (Alternative D) are analyzed and compared to a No Action Alternative in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative. Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in significant long-term changes in release patterns but would continue operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet authorized purposes and to honor existing water and power contracts. Blue Mesa and Morrow point power plants would continue to provide peaking power operations and Crystal Dam and Reservoir would continue to reregulate upstream releases and to provide uniform downstream flows. The downstream of Crystal Dam minimum flow of 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) would continue, excepting during emergencies and extended droughts, when flow could be reduced to a minimum of 200 cfs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Action alternatives would benefit downstream endangered fish and their habitat and more natural flows would help maintain the river channel and associated riparian areas in the Black Canyon, Gunnison Gorge, and areas downstream. The preferred alternative would contribute to stabilizing native biodiversity in the Gunnison River and flow recommendations would reverse some of the hydrologic effects of the dam and its operations to allow recovery of the native razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have minor to moderate adverse effects to recreation including a projected mean reduction in summer visitation to Blue Mesa Reservoir of 7.23 percent relative to the No Action Alternative, and higher spring flows in May and June would tend to reduce recreation use in the Black Canyon, Gunnison Gorge, and downstream. All action alternatives result in a loss of electric generation capacity and an economic loss from the Aspinall power system on an average annual basis. Alternative B would reduce total electric generation by an average of 9,914 MWh per year and reduce total economic value by an average of 1.47 percent annually. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat, 1107). JF - EPA number: 090044, Draft EIS--161 pages, Appendices--185 pages, February 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-02 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Gunnison River KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ASPINALL+UNIT+OPERATIONS%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+GUNNISON+RIVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ASPINALL+UNIT+OPERATIONS%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+GUNNISON+RIVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS, COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT, GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO. AN - 36344812; 13777 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications of the operations of the Aspinall Unit, a Colorado River Storage Project in western Colorado, to provide sufficient releases of water to avoid jeopardy to four endangered fish species are proposed. Flow recommendations for the Gunnison River, in concert with other program actions, are intended to avoid jeopardy and assist in recovery of the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and humpback chub, which exist only in the Colorado River Basin and have been impacted by water development. The effects of the proposed action would encompass the Aspinall Unit (including Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal dams, power plants, and reservoirs) and upstream resources, Curecanti National Recreation Area, the Gunniston River downstream to its confluence with the Colorado River, and the downstream Colorado River. Four action alternatives, Risk of Spill (Alternative A), Fish Peak with Duration (Alternative B), Fish Peak with Increased Duration (Alternative C), and Fish Peak with Revised Target (Alternative D) are analyzed and compared to a No Action Alternative in this draft EIS. Alternative B is the preferred alternative. Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in significant long-term changes in release patterns but would continue operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet authorized purposes and to honor existing water and power contracts. Blue Mesa and Morrow point power plants would continue to provide peaking power operations and Crystal Dam and Reservoir would continue to reregulate upstream releases and to provide uniform downstream flows. The downstream of Crystal Dam minimum flow of 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) would continue, excepting during emergencies and extended droughts, when flow could be reduced to a minimum of 200 cfs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Action alternatives would benefit downstream endangered fish and their habitat and more natural flows would help maintain the river channel and associated riparian areas in the Black Canyon, Gunnison Gorge, and areas downstream. The preferred alternative would contribute to stabilizing native biodiversity in the Gunnison River and flow recommendations would reverse some of the hydrologic effects of the dam and its operations to allow recovery of the native razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have minor to moderate adverse effects to recreation including a projected mean reduction in summer visitation to Blue Mesa Reservoir of 7.23 percent relative to the No Action Alternative, and higher spring flows in May and June would tend to reduce recreation use in the Black Canyon, Gunnison Gorge, and downstream. All action alternatives result in a loss of electric generation capacity and an economic loss from the Aspinall power system on an average annual basis. Alternative B would reduce total electric generation by an average of 9,914 MWh per year and reduce total economic value by an average of 1.47 percent annually. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat, 1107). JF - EPA number: 090044, Draft EIS--161 pages, Appendices--185 pages, February 13, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 09-02 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Gunnison River KW - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Compliance KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ASPINALL+UNIT+OPERATIONS%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+GUNNISON+RIVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=ASPINALL+UNIT+OPERATIONS%2C+COLORADO+RIVER+STORAGE+PROJECT%2C+GUNNISON+RIVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE, PORTER, AND LAPORTE COUNTIES, INDIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE, PORTER, AND LAPORTE COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 756824999; 13711-090028_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties, Indiana is proposed. In national parks in the eastern United States, such as the park at hand, landscapes have been managed to allow for preservation and rehabilitation of scenic, scientific, and historic landscapes. The result in a mix of forest, shrub, and grassland that provides excellent habitat for white-tailed deer. Low mortality rates. due to lack of adequate predation of deer and increased browse and habitat availability. have resulted in excessive increases in the deer population. Deer density currently exceeds 100 animals per square mile in some areas. Herd sizes of this magnitude can result in serious impacts on vegetation and wildlife populations dependent upon that vegetation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Actions under Alternative A would be limited to fencing, limited use of repellents, and developing resource inventories and mounting monitoring efforts. Alterative B would include all actions under Alterative A, but would also incorporate non-lethal actions to reduce deer numbers. The additional actions would include the construction of additional enclosures, more extensive use of repellents in areas where fenced enclosures were not appropriate or feasible, and implementing a phased program for nonsurgical reproductive control for does when a federally approved control agent became available for application to free-ranging populations that would provide multi-year reproductive control effectively. Alternative C would would include all actions under Alternative A, but would also incorporate a direct reduction in deer herd size through sharpshooting and euthanasia, where appropriate. Alternative D, the preferred Alternative, would include all actions for Alterative A, but would also incorporate a combination of the lethal and non-lethal actions from alternatives B and C. These actions would include a reduction in herd size through sharpshooting, in combination with euthanasia and nonsurgical reproductive control for does. Costs for the implementation of alternatives A, B, C, and D over a 15-year time horizon are estimated at $350,825, $11.3 million and $1.0 million to $1.2 million, and $2.6 million to $2.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a scientifically based system of checks and balances, such as monitoring and active management, to ensure that deer populations do not prevent the long-term conservation of sensitive plant and animal species and other vegetation and the associate wildlife species. Degradation of the National Lakeshore resources would be prevented as deer impact levels would remain balanced with other components of the ecosystem and other lakeshore values. The plan would facilitate public support, education, and appreciation for maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090028, 365 pages and maps, January 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-09 KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Indiana KW - Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Porter, Indiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE, PORTER, AND LAPORTE COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 16387007; 13711 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties, Indiana is proposed. In national parks in the eastern United States, such as the park at hand, landscapes have been managed to allow for preservation and rehabilitation of scenic, scientific, and historic landscapes. The result in a mix of forest, shrub, and grassland that provides excellent habitat for white-tailed deer. Low mortality rates. due to lack of adequate predation of deer and increased browse and habitat availability. have resulted in excessive increases in the deer population. Deer density currently exceeds 100 animals per square mile in some areas. Herd sizes of this magnitude can result in serious impacts on vegetation and wildlife populations dependent upon that vegetation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Actions under Alternative A would be limited to fencing, limited use of repellents, and developing resource inventories and mounting monitoring efforts. Alterative B would include all actions under Alterative A, but would also incorporate non-lethal actions to reduce deer numbers. The additional actions would include the construction of additional enclosures, more extensive use of repellents in areas where fenced enclosures were not appropriate or feasible, and implementing a phased program for nonsurgical reproductive control for does when a federally approved control agent became available for application to free-ranging populations that would provide multi-year reproductive control effectively. Alternative C would would include all actions under Alternative A, but would also incorporate a direct reduction in deer herd size through sharpshooting and euthanasia, where appropriate. Alternative D, the preferred Alternative, would include all actions for Alterative A, but would also incorporate a combination of the lethal and non-lethal actions from alternatives B and C. These actions would include a reduction in herd size through sharpshooting, in combination with euthanasia and nonsurgical reproductive control for does. Costs for the implementation of alternatives A, B, C, and D over a 15-year time horizon are estimated at $350,825, $11.3 million and $1.0 million to $1.2 million, and $2.6 million to $2.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a scientifically based system of checks and balances, such as monitoring and active management, to ensure that deer populations do not prevent the long-term conservation of sensitive plant and animal species and other vegetation and the associate wildlife species. Degradation of the National Lakeshore resources would be prevented as deer impact levels would remain balanced with other components of the ecosystem and other lakeshore values. The plan would facilitate public support, education, and appreciation for maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090028, 365 pages and maps, January 30, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 09-09 KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Indiana KW - Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Porter, Indiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126879; 13690-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126872; 13690-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126607; 13690-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126604; 13690-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126594; 13690-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873126583; 13690-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CARRIZO PLAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT, BAKERSFIELD, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 36345561; 13690 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a resource management plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM) in eastern San Luis Obispo County and western Kerr County, California is proposed. The 246,853-acre CPNM lies in the Coastal Range of central California, approximately 90 miles west of Bakersfield and 60 miles east of San Luis Obispo. The monument was established on January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation (William Clinton) his authority under Section 2 of the Antiquities Act. The Proclamation cited the following as the purpose of the CPNM: protect the largest undeveloped remnant of San Joaquin Valley grassland; provide for the long-term conservation of the endemic plant and animal communities; establish a refuge for federally designated protected species as well as important populations of pronghorn antelope and tule elk; protect Soda Lake, the largest remaining alkali wetland in Southern California; interpret geologic processes, including those of the San Andreas Fault; and protect and interpret significant fossil assemblages and archaeological and other cultural resources. Two previous plans have been developed to guide management of the Carrizo Plain, specifically, the 1997 Caliente RMP, which provides general guidance at a landscape level, and a 2003 Environmental assessment for an RMP that has yet to result in a draft EIS. The Draft EIS at hand has been issued as a new start for this planning effort specific to the CPNM. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, fire and fire management, air quality, soils, water resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wilderness, geology and paleontology, cultural resources, visual aesthetics, areas of critical Environmental concern, livestock grazing, recreation and interpretation of resources, administrative facilities, travel management, mineral resources, lands and realty, and research management. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would provide for a "hands off" approach to resource management, limiting public uses within the monument more than the current RMP. Natural processes would be allowed to proceed unassisted, with minimal interventions to stabilize fluctuations of wildlife and vegetation, excepting in instances where populations were in jeopardy. No grazing would be authorized. Most of the area would be designated for primitive recreational uses and managed to maintain Wilderness characteristics. A small road network would be open to public use. Access to rock art sites would not be permitted, and minimal interventions would be taken to stabilize or restore historic and prehistoric sites suffering from natural decay. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would incorporate more intensive management than Alternative 1. Only moderate acreage would be allocated for Wilderness management. A mix of active biological restoration and hands-off approaches would be used across the areas designated for more intense recreation management. Re-creation use and rustic improvements would be focused along the Soda Lake road corridor, with the remainder of the area providing for dispersed opportunities. with respect to vegetation management, this alternative would provide for a transition to grazing. Access to rock art would be allowed by permit and guided tour, and priority historic sites would be stabilized or restored. Alternative 3 would provide for the most active management approach, employing a broad array of intensive management measures and allowing higher levels of public use. Only the existing Caliente Mountain Wilderness Study Area would be managed to maintain Wilderness values. Cultural sites would be actively restored and Environmental education programs and facilities linked to cultural and natural resources would receive intensive management attention. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would protect and interpret the exceptional objects of scientific, recreational, and historic interest identified in the 2001 Presidential Proclamation. Use of prescribed fire would benefit habitat structure and livestock forage. The preferred plan would reduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emissions on and off roads throughout the monument. Soil function would improve significantly. Visual aesthetics would be enhanced through restoration and removal of facilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to resources and, through the use of standard operating procedures, stipulations in contracts with third parties, and best management practices, would largely mitigate these impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090007, Volume I--423 pages, Volume II--376 pages, Volume III--389 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2009-004+8300-6240 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Earthquakes KW - Fire Prevention KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Livestock KW - Monuments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Research KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Seismology KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Carrizo Plain National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Antiquities Act of 1906, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=CARRIZO+PLAIN+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+BAKERSFIELD%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756825263; 13688-090005_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of off-lease surface facilities related to the operation of the Red Cliff Coal Mine (RCM) Project in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado is proposed. The project area lies 11 miles north of the towns of Mack and Loma and 1.5 miles east of State Highway 139. The applicant, CAM Colorado, Inc., currently mines 280,000 tons of coal annually from the underground McClane Canyon Mine (MCM), located three miles South of the proposed RCM. The MCM provides coal for Xcel Energy's Cameo Power Plant east of Grand Junction. CAM plans to continue to deliver coal to the power plant by truck as long as the plant continues operation and CAM has the supply contract; average delivery rate would be 230 trucks of coal per week. If the Cameo Power Plant is shut down while economically recoverable coal remains underground at MCM, CAM may truck coal from MCM to the RCM loadout. When the MCM is shut down, trucks would originate from the RCM. With increased production and a railroad connection, coal produced from the RCM could be transported to power plants elsewhere in the United States. Once washed, the coal provides a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel with a heating value of 11,000 to 11,500 British thermal units. Initially, CAM proposed to use the infrastructure to mine, using underground techniques, a federal coal lease-by-application (LBA) encompassing 11,660 acres adjacent to CAM's existing leases; this world encompass federal coal leases C0125515, C0125516, and C0125439. Through a tract delineation process BLM would modify the LBA to include 23,000 acres. BLM determined that, if this coal were to be leases, it would have to be via competitive bidding. In addition, Grand Valley Power (GVP) has submitted a separate application to construct transmission and utility systems and facilities on federal lands to BLM to allow GVP to construct and operate a 49-kV electric transmission line to provide power for Red Cliff Mine operations. Surface facilities to be developed include roads, a water pipeline, the GVP electric transmission line, coal conveyors and a stockpile, waste disposal areas. a coal preparation plant, the mine portal, a railroad spur connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad line near Mac, and ancillary administrative and operations facilities. The rail spur would traverse 9.5 miles of BLM-administered land and five miles of private land, while the transmission line would traverse seven miles of BLM-administered and seven miles of private land. Underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining would be conducted round-the-clock, 365 days per year. Mine construction would require two years at an estimated cost of $160 million in 2006 dollars. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would result in BLM refusing to grant the rights-of-way to access, power, and operate the mine and deliver coal to the market, as well as alternative means of transporting coal, coal transportation routes, means and routes for delivering electricity to the mine, sources and routes for delivering water to the mine, means and locations for disposing of waste rock, methods of venting methane gas from the mine, and future coal lease areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCM project would remove 8.0 million tons of coal annually from the LBA area over its 30-year mine life; the production rate at the mine would be regulated to meet market demand cost-effectively and efficiently. Entry of the coal into the electrical power generation market would provide for a relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuel and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The mine would provide for continued and expanded employment rolls for local workers and otherwise boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During development and operation of the mine livestock grazing would be eliminated from the affected rangeland. Wildlife forage and other aspects of wildlife habitat would be fragmented and wildlife cover would be reduced significantly; approximately one percent of livestock forage would be removed from the affected allotments. A portion of the North Fruita Special Resource Management Area would be affected by mining operations. Rural aesthetics and other recreational and cultural values would be degraded. Geological and soil structures in the mined area would be irretrievably damaged. Vegetation, including wetland and riparian species, would be temporarily lost. Water depletion in Mack Wash could degrade habitat for federally protected Colorado River fish species. Land subsidence could result due to mine void collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090005, Draft EIS--481 pages and maps, Appendices (CD-ROM, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - Grand Junction Resource Management Area 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 - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756825162; 13688-090005_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of off-lease surface facilities related to the operation of the Red Cliff Coal Mine (RCM) Project in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado is proposed. The project area lies 11 miles north of the towns of Mack and Loma and 1.5 miles east of State Highway 139. The applicant, CAM Colorado, Inc., currently mines 280,000 tons of coal annually from the underground McClane Canyon Mine (MCM), located three miles South of the proposed RCM. The MCM provides coal for Xcel Energy's Cameo Power Plant east of Grand Junction. CAM plans to continue to deliver coal to the power plant by truck as long as the plant continues operation and CAM has the supply contract; average delivery rate would be 230 trucks of coal per week. If the Cameo Power Plant is shut down while economically recoverable coal remains underground at MCM, CAM may truck coal from MCM to the RCM loadout. When the MCM is shut down, trucks would originate from the RCM. With increased production and a railroad connection, coal produced from the RCM could be transported to power plants elsewhere in the United States. Once washed, the coal provides a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel with a heating value of 11,000 to 11,500 British thermal units. Initially, CAM proposed to use the infrastructure to mine, using underground techniques, a federal coal lease-by-application (LBA) encompassing 11,660 acres adjacent to CAM's existing leases; this world encompass federal coal leases C0125515, C0125516, and C0125439. Through a tract delineation process BLM would modify the LBA to include 23,000 acres. BLM determined that, if this coal were to be leases, it would have to be via competitive bidding. In addition, Grand Valley Power (GVP) has submitted a separate application to construct transmission and utility systems and facilities on federal lands to BLM to allow GVP to construct and operate a 49-kV electric transmission line to provide power for Red Cliff Mine operations. Surface facilities to be developed include roads, a water pipeline, the GVP electric transmission line, coal conveyors and a stockpile, waste disposal areas. a coal preparation plant, the mine portal, a railroad spur connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad line near Mac, and ancillary administrative and operations facilities. The rail spur would traverse 9.5 miles of BLM-administered land and five miles of private land, while the transmission line would traverse seven miles of BLM-administered and seven miles of private land. Underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining would be conducted round-the-clock, 365 days per year. Mine construction would require two years at an estimated cost of $160 million in 2006 dollars. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would result in BLM refusing to grant the rights-of-way to access, power, and operate the mine and deliver coal to the market, as well as alternative means of transporting coal, coal transportation routes, means and routes for delivering electricity to the mine, sources and routes for delivering water to the mine, means and locations for disposing of waste rock, methods of venting methane gas from the mine, and future coal lease areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCM project would remove 8.0 million tons of coal annually from the LBA area over its 30-year mine life; the production rate at the mine would be regulated to meet market demand cost-effectively and efficiently. Entry of the coal into the electrical power generation market would provide for a relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuel and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The mine would provide for continued and expanded employment rolls for local workers and otherwise boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During development and operation of the mine livestock grazing would be eliminated from the affected rangeland. Wildlife forage and other aspects of wildlife habitat would be fragmented and wildlife cover would be reduced significantly; approximately one percent of livestock forage would be removed from the affected allotments. A portion of the North Fruita Special Resource Management Area would be affected by mining operations. Rural aesthetics and other recreational and cultural values would be degraded. Geological and soil structures in the mined area would be irretrievably damaged. Vegetation, including wetland and riparian species, would be temporarily lost. Water depletion in Mack Wash could degrade habitat for federally protected Colorado River fish species. Land subsidence could result due to mine void collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090005, Draft EIS--481 pages and maps, Appendices (CD-ROM, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - Grand Junction Resource Management Area 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 - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 756824960; 13687-090004_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new comprehensive management plan for the 91-acre Jefferson National Expansion Memorial located along the Mississippi Riverfront in downtown St. Louis, Missouri is proposed to direct management of the memorial for the next 15 to 20 years. The memorial was established December 21, 1935, by a presidential executive order, to honor the memory of the pioneers of the westward expansion of the United States and its development served as a central foundation in the revitalization efforts for the entire downtown section of St. Louis. Between 1939 and 1942, 40 square blocks of condemned buildings were razed to make way for the memorial. Only the Old Courthouse and the Old Cathedral were left standing. The Gateway Arch, which was completed in 1965, is a nationally recognized icon of the city as a portal to the American West and a major tourist attraction. The most recent comprehensive management plan for the monument was completed in 1962; hence, it is has outlived its effectiveness. Moreover, legislation was passed in 1984 and 1992 that expanded the memorial to the west of its then boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would, with the participation of local partners, launch a design competition, akin to a competition launched in 1947. The necessary project funding would not come entirely at the outset; it would most likely be provided by partners, donations from the public, and other non-federal and federal sources. Private funding would be required in order to implement the winning contest entry. In addition to implementing the winning contest entry, this alternative would continue the current educational and interpretive programs and expand opportunities for visitors to participate in more interactive experiences across the memorial grounds. Among other structural rehabilitation provisions, the roof of the Old Courthouse would be replaced. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would revitalize the memorial by expanding programming, facilities, and partnerships. The National Park Service would capitalize on multiple opportunities to expand visitor experience throughout the Memorial with respect to interpretation, education, and visitor amenities. The pedestrian environment within and around the memorial would be significantly enhances. The rules of the design competition would ensure the protection of National Historic Landmark designation for the existing memorial structures. Cityscapes within the memorial would undergo significant improvement, as would connectivity with local neighborhoods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The design receiving the award could result in significant long-term beneficial or deleterious impacts to transportation in the downtown St. Louis area. In general, the choice to base new design on a public competition would result in a factor of chance with respect to social and Environmental impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Historic Sites Act of 1935 and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090004, 169 pages, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 09-03 KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking Surveys KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Jefferson National Expansion Memorial KW - Missouri KW - Historic Sites Act of 1935, Project Authorization KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEFFERSON+NATIONAL+EXPANSION+MEMORIAL%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=JEFFERSON+NATIONAL+EXPANSION+MEMORIAL%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Louis, Missouri; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 36350283; 13688 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of off-lease surface facilities related to the operation of the Red Cliff Coal Mine (RCM) Project in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado is proposed. The project area lies 11 miles north of the towns of Mack and Loma and 1.5 miles east of State Highway 139. The applicant, CAM Colorado, Inc., currently mines 280,000 tons of coal annually from the underground McClane Canyon Mine (MCM), located three miles South of the proposed RCM. The MCM provides coal for Xcel Energy's Cameo Power Plant east of Grand Junction. CAM plans to continue to deliver coal to the power plant by truck as long as the plant continues operation and CAM has the supply contract; average delivery rate would be 230 trucks of coal per week. If the Cameo Power Plant is shut down while economically recoverable coal remains underground at MCM, CAM may truck coal from MCM to the RCM loadout. When the MCM is shut down, trucks would originate from the RCM. With increased production and a railroad connection, coal produced from the RCM could be transported to power plants elsewhere in the United States. Once washed, the coal provides a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel with a heating value of 11,000 to 11,500 British thermal units. Initially, CAM proposed to use the infrastructure to mine, using underground techniques, a federal coal lease-by-application (LBA) encompassing 11,660 acres adjacent to CAM's existing leases; this world encompass federal coal leases C0125515, C0125516, and C0125439. Through a tract delineation process BLM would modify the LBA to include 23,000 acres. BLM determined that, if this coal were to be leases, it would have to be via competitive bidding. In addition, Grand Valley Power (GVP) has submitted a separate application to construct transmission and utility systems and facilities on federal lands to BLM to allow GVP to construct and operate a 49-kV electric transmission line to provide power for Red Cliff Mine operations. Surface facilities to be developed include roads, a water pipeline, the GVP electric transmission line, coal conveyors and a stockpile, waste disposal areas. a coal preparation plant, the mine portal, a railroad spur connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad line near Mac, and ancillary administrative and operations facilities. The rail spur would traverse 9.5 miles of BLM-administered land and five miles of private land, while the transmission line would traverse seven miles of BLM-administered and seven miles of private land. Underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining would be conducted round-the-clock, 365 days per year. Mine construction would require two years at an estimated cost of $160 million in 2006 dollars. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would result in BLM refusing to grant the rights-of-way to access, power, and operate the mine and deliver coal to the market, as well as alternative means of transporting coal, coal transportation routes, means and routes for delivering electricity to the mine, sources and routes for delivering water to the mine, means and locations for disposing of waste rock, methods of venting methane gas from the mine, and future coal lease areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCM project would remove 8.0 million tons of coal annually from the LBA area over its 30-year mine life; the production rate at the mine would be regulated to meet market demand cost-effectively and efficiently. Entry of the coal into the electrical power generation market would provide for a relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuel and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The mine would provide for continued and expanded employment rolls for local workers and otherwise boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During development and operation of the mine livestock grazing would be eliminated from the affected rangeland. Wildlife forage and other aspects of wildlife habitat would be fragmented and wildlife cover would be reduced significantly; approximately one percent of livestock forage would be removed from the affected allotments. A portion of the North Fruita Special Resource Management Area would be affected by mining operations. Rural aesthetics and other recreational and cultural values would be degraded. Geological and soil structures in the mined area would be irretrievably damaged. Vegetation, including wetland and riparian species, would be temporarily lost. Water depletion in Mack Wash could degrade habitat for federally protected Colorado River fish species. Land subsidence could result due to mine void collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090005, Draft EIS--481 pages and maps, Appendices (CD-ROM, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - Grand Junction Resource Management Area 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 - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JEFFERSON NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. AN - 36344443; 13687 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new comprehensive management plan for the 91-acre Jefferson National Expansion Memorial located along the Mississippi Riverfront in downtown St. Louis, Missouri is proposed to direct management of the memorial for the next 15 to 20 years. The memorial was established December 21, 1935, by a presidential executive order, to honor the memory of the pioneers of the westward expansion of the United States and its development served as a central foundation in the revitalization efforts for the entire downtown section of St. Louis. Between 1939 and 1942, 40 square blocks of condemned buildings were razed to make way for the memorial. Only the Old Courthouse and the Old Cathedral were left standing. The Gateway Arch, which was completed in 1965, is a nationally recognized icon of the city as a portal to the American West and a major tourist attraction. The most recent comprehensive management plan for the monument was completed in 1962; hence, it is has outlived its effectiveness. Moreover, legislation was passed in 1984 and 1992 that expanded the memorial to the west of its then boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would, with the participation of local partners, launch a design competition, akin to a competition launched in 1947. The necessary project funding would not come entirely at the outset; it would most likely be provided by partners, donations from the public, and other non-federal and federal sources. Private funding would be required in order to implement the winning contest entry. In addition to implementing the winning contest entry, this alternative would continue the current educational and interpretive programs and expand opportunities for visitors to participate in more interactive experiences across the memorial grounds. Among other structural rehabilitation provisions, the roof of the Old Courthouse would be replaced. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would revitalize the memorial by expanding programming, facilities, and partnerships. The National Park Service would capitalize on multiple opportunities to expand visitor experience throughout the Memorial with respect to interpretation, education, and visitor amenities. The pedestrian environment within and around the memorial would be significantly enhances. The rules of the design competition would ensure the protection of National Historic Landmark designation for the existing memorial structures. Cityscapes within the memorial would undergo significant improvement, as would connectivity with local neighborhoods. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The design receiving the award could result in significant long-term beneficial or deleterious impacts to transportation in the downtown St. Louis area. In general, the choice to base new design on a public competition would result in a factor of chance with respect to social and Environmental impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Historic Sites Act of 1935 and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090004, 169 pages, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 09-03 KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking Surveys KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Jefferson National Expansion Memorial KW - Missouri KW - Historic Sites Act of 1935, Project Authorization KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JEFFERSON+NATIONAL+EXPANSION+MEMORIAL%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=JEFFERSON+NATIONAL+EXPANSION+MEMORIAL%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Louis, Missouri; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - GEN T1 - US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs School Report Cards, SY 2008-2009 AN - 881457230; ED521186 AB - This document presents the Indian School Report Cards for School Year 2008-2009. Data tables for each school are presented according to: (1) Enrollment; (2) Average Daily Attendance Rate, Graduation Rate and Dropout Rate; (3) Student Achievement; and (4) High Quality Teachers. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 1308 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Reading Achievement KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Dropout Rate KW - Enrollment KW - Language Arts KW - Science Achievement KW - American Indian Education KW - Graduation Rate KW - Teacher Effectiveness KW - Average Daily Attendance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/881457230?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A new karst map of the United States AN - 742921630; 2010-060294 AB - Over the last several years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has worked toward compiling a new map of karst in the United States in cooperation with the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI), the National Speleological Society (NSS), and with contributions by various state geological surveys. The new National Karst Map will replace previous paper maps with a digital, GIS-based product. The digital data will provide significant improvements in precision and utility inherent to spatial data in a GIS environment, as well as some inherent limitations to data applications and interpretations. Our approach to producing a new karst map is to first compile a map of soluble bedrock derived from various data sources, primarily published state and federal geologic maps. In addition, features analogous to karst are presented where geologic information is available to support the delineation of these areas (e.g., volcanic pseudokarst). The potential karst areas are then subdivided based on styles of karstification within the context of the regional setting. In the eastern United States the extent of outcrop of soluble rocks provides a good first-approximation of the distribution of karst-prone areas. Criteria are being developed for further refinement of the map units including the distribution and density of caves, sinkholes, and other karst features. Issues complicating the compilation and classification process include: (1) a lack of coherence in spatial precision and lithologic classification between the various geologic maps; (2) lack of easily obtainable statewide and region-wide karst feature data; and, (3) recognition and quantification of key, non-lithologic factors affecting the development and distribution of karst features. Ongoing work includes delineating areas of pseudokarst in addition to volcanic terrains, and to improve delineation and classification of principal karstic aquifers. Linkage to the Karst Information Portal (KIP) and NCKRI offers a potential framework for integration of the national map to karst data sets of all resolutions from national to local scales. JF - Proceedings of the International Congress of Speleology AU - Weary, David J AU - Doctor (USGs), Daniel H A2 - White, William B. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 457 EP - 460 PB - International Union of Speleology, [location varies] VL - 15, Vol. 1 SN - 0731-3136, 0731-3136 KW - United States KW - speleothems KW - bedrock KW - survey organizations KW - volcanic rocks KW - cartography KW - U. S. Geological Survey KW - igneous rocks KW - government agencies KW - mapping KW - karst KW - spatial distribution KW - karstification KW - sedimentary rocks KW - geographic information systems KW - data bases KW - associations KW - information systems KW - solution features KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742921630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Congress+of+Speleology&rft.atitle=A+new+karst+map+of+the+United+States&rft.au=Weary%2C+David+J%3BDoctor+%28USGs%29%2C+Daniel+H&rft.aulast=Weary&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=15%2C+Vol.+1&rft.issue=&rft.spage=457&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Congress+of+Speleology&rft.issn=07313136&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 15th international congress of speleology N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 18 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - associations; bedrock; cartography; data bases; geographic information systems; government agencies; igneous rocks; information systems; karst; karstification; mapping; sedimentary rocks; solution features; spatial distribution; speleothems; survey organizations; U. S. Geological Survey; United States; volcanic rocks ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELY ENERGY CENTER, CLARK, ELKO, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ELY ENERGY CENTER, CLARK, ELKO, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873125595; 13675-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way to the Nevada Power Company for the construction and operation of a four-unit, 2,500-megawatt (MW) power plant, to be known as the Ely Energy Center, on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. The plant site would be located in Steptoe Valley 20 miles north of Ely. During Phase 1 of the project, the energy center would consist of two coal-fired 750-MW ultra-supercritical steam turbine units and associated site facilities, including surge tanks, pipelines, access roads, pumping stations, and a raw water storage pond. Communications systems and a 69-kilovolt (KV) power line to provide electrical power for the pump stations and other facilities would be included in the project. Temporary construction worker housing would be constructed near the site. Water for plant boilers and ancillary uses would be drawn from a well field, which would provide all the necessary 8,000 acre-feet per year. Each year, the plant would consume 9.4 million tons of coal, which would be transported to the energy center via a refurbished railway or new railway Power generated by the energy center would be delivered to the regional electrical grid by two 500-kV transmission lines extending 250 miles South to the 500-kV-Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas. Ancillary transmission facilities would include a new 500-kV switchyard at the energy center, a 500/245-kV substation near Robinson Summit Substation, modifications to the Harry Allen Substation, and access roads into and along the transmission system. The electric transmission and railroad facilities supporting the energy center would traverse Clark, Elko, Nye, Lincoln and White Pine counties. The rail line would connect with the Nevada Northern Railway, which is currently undergoing an upgrade. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an alternative plant site. Phase 2 of the project would consist of the addition of two coal gasification 500-MW units and associated facilities at the center site, additional water supply as necessary, and a 500-kV transmission and fiber optic line from Robinson Summit to the Harry Allen Substation; the new transmission line would generally parallel the Phase 1 transmission line. The Phase 2 units would employ integrated gasification combined cycle technology or another clean combustion technology. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The energy center would help meet the increasing power demands in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. the center would provide baseload power around the clock in a reliable and efficient manner. The installation of gas-fired units during Phase 2 would diversify the applicant's power generation base, allowing the applicant to be more flexible in responding to vicissitudes in the fuel market. The construction of Phase 1 facilities would employ 2,500 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses for 3,000 acres during its 50-year life. A 1,000-acre site would be developed as a landfill for ash and other combustion products, precluding many post-project uses. Withdrawal of groundwater would cause a maximum aquifer drawdown of 15.3 feet extending approximately 7 miles southwest and eight miles northwest of the well field. Lesser drawdowns would be more extensive. Clearing at the plant site and along the rights-of-way would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and wild horse management needs and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Construction activities would affect 18 known archaeological sites and 454 acres outside those sites that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as are the known sites. Current recreational uses of the site would be displaced and recreational experiences in the vicinity of the site would decline in value due to the degraded visual aesthetics, increased noise level, and air pollutant emissions. Plant operations would result in the emission of 1,788 tons per year (TPY) of particulates, 4,628 TPY of sulfur dioxide, 7,720 TPY of carbon monoxide, 10.6 million TPY of carbon dioxide, 4,853 TPY of nitrogen oxides, and 285 TPY of volatile organic compounds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080537, Volume 1--526 pages and maps, Volume 2--699 pages and maps, CD-ROM, December 22, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-09/03+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coal KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Housing KW - Landfills KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pumping Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Power Plants KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%2C+CLARK%2C+ELKO%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%2C+CLARK%2C+ELKO%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELY ENERGY CENTER, CLARK, ELKO, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 36349248; 13675 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way to the Nevada Power Company for the construction and operation of a four-unit, 2,500-megawatt (MW) power plant, to be known as the Ely Energy Center, on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. The plant site would be located in Steptoe Valley 20 miles north of Ely. During Phase 1 of the project, the energy center would consist of two coal-fired 750-MW ultra-supercritical steam turbine units and associated site facilities, including surge tanks, pipelines, access roads, pumping stations, and a raw water storage pond. Communications systems and a 69-kilovolt (KV) power line to provide electrical power for the pump stations and other facilities would be included in the project. Temporary construction worker housing would be constructed near the site. Water for plant boilers and ancillary uses would be drawn from a well field, which would provide all the necessary 8,000 acre-feet per year. Each year, the plant would consume 9.4 million tons of coal, which would be transported to the energy center via a refurbished railway or new railway Power generated by the energy center would be delivered to the regional electrical grid by two 500-kV transmission lines extending 250 miles South to the 500-kV-Harry Allen Substation near Las Vegas. Ancillary transmission facilities would include a new 500-kV switchyard at the energy center, a 500/245-kV substation near Robinson Summit Substation, modifications to the Harry Allen Substation, and access roads into and along the transmission system. The electric transmission and railroad facilities supporting the energy center would traverse Clark, Elko, Nye, Lincoln and White Pine counties. The rail line would connect with the Nevada Northern Railway, which is currently undergoing an upgrade. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an alternative plant site. Phase 2 of the project would consist of the addition of two coal gasification 500-MW units and associated facilities at the center site, additional water supply as necessary, and a 500-kV transmission and fiber optic line from Robinson Summit to the Harry Allen Substation; the new transmission line would generally parallel the Phase 1 transmission line. The Phase 2 units would employ integrated gasification combined cycle technology or another clean combustion technology. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The energy center would help meet the increasing power demands in Nevada and elsewhere in the western United States. the center would provide baseload power around the clock in a reliable and efficient manner. The installation of gas-fired units during Phase 2 would diversify the applicant's power generation base, allowing the applicant to be more flexible in responding to vicissitudes in the fuel market. The construction of Phase 1 facilities would employ 2,500 workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses for 3,000 acres during its 50-year life. A 1,000-acre site would be developed as a landfill for ash and other combustion products, precluding many post-project uses. Withdrawal of groundwater would cause a maximum aquifer drawdown of 15.3 feet extending approximately 7 miles southwest and eight miles northwest of the well field. Lesser drawdowns would be more extensive. Clearing at the plant site and along the rights-of-way would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and wild horse management needs and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Construction activities would affect 18 known archaeological sites and 454 acres outside those sites that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as are the known sites. Current recreational uses of the site would be displaced and recreational experiences in the vicinity of the site would decline in value due to the degraded visual aesthetics, increased noise level, and air pollutant emissions. Plant operations would result in the emission of 1,788 tons per year (TPY) of particulates, 4,628 TPY of sulfur dioxide, 7,720 TPY of carbon monoxide, 10.6 million TPY of carbon dioxide, 4,853 TPY of nitrogen oxides, and 285 TPY of volatile organic compounds. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080537, Volume 1--526 pages and maps, Volume 2--699 pages and maps, CD-ROM, December 22, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES-GI-09/03+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coal KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Housing KW - Landfills KW - Livestock KW - Natural Gas KW - Pumping Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Power Plants KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%2C+CLARK%2C+ELKO%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%2C+CLARK%2C+ELKO%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825292; 13672-080534_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825235; 13672-080534_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825185; 13672-080534_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825126; 13672-080534_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIAN CREEK MINE EXPANSION, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INDIAN CREEK MINE EXPANSION, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 756825122; 13673-080535_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a life-of-mine expansion of limestone and dolomite mining operations at the Indian Creek Mine, located approximately four miles west of Townsend, Montana, is proposed by Graymont Western US, Inc. Graymont proposes to extend mine operations 2.5 miles southward of the existing permit boundary into the South Claims Area and eastward into thee Dolomite Claims Area adjoining the northeast corner of the existing mine permit boundary. The proposed amendment would involve 1,940 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management to extend the mine life from 15 years to 50 years. The proposed action would result in a continuation of Graymont's existing operations in the Limestone Hills, including the development of mint pits, mine facilities, ore storage sites, soil salvage stockpiles, haul roads, and overburden disposal areas. A disturbance boundary encompassing 1,313 acres, including 968 acres in the South Claims Area and 345 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area, would be established within the proposed operating permit area. Actual surface disturbance for mining activities within the disturbance boundary would be less than the permitted disturbance to allow for flexible mine planning. Mine activities would continue in the same manner as current operations. Limestone and dolomite would be removed in layers, or "benches", approximately 20 feet thick. As mining progresses downward on the deposit, safety rock catch benches would be created to a minimum width of 20 feet at vertical intervals ranging from 20 to 60 feet. Ramp roads within the quarry would connect successive benches to provide truck and loader access. Overburden would be placed in disposal areas along the west boundary of the mine or used as backfill in depleted mine areas; up to 50 percent of the overburden would be replaced into the mine void as backfill. Final grading would re-establish contoured slopes. Reject rock resulting from ore crushing would be placed along the west side of the mine. Limestone ore would be transported to a new crusher site north of the reject rock disposal area. Crushed limestone would be transported via haul trucks to the existing crusher site and conveyed to the kilns located north of Indian Creek at the plant facility. Kiln dust and other emissions would be controlled via baghouse facilities. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the Modified Pit Backfill Alternative; the latter, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to the applicant's proposal, except Graymont would be required to take additional measures with respect to reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the mine would increase its life by 35 years, providing a products in high demand by the construction industry and employing local workers into the distant future. Reclamation stipulations under the preferred alternative would ensure the mining caused the least damage possible to the environment and maintained, as much as possible, area landscape contours. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance over 1,313 acres associated with the mine pit expansion would affect 343 acres in the South Claims Area and 214 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area. Mine-related activities would result in the loss of 451 acres of mountain mahogany habitat, which would represent 18 percent of such habitat in the Limestone Hills, though 680 acres of mahogany would be planted at a density of 20 seedlings per acre. Sagebrush and other native shrubs and trees would be removed during mining, reducing available habitat, including habitat for mule deer, Brewer's sparrow, and bighorn sheep. Up to 19 of the 23 federally protected townsendia plants in the Dolomite Claims Area would be removed during mining; removal of these individual plants would not likely affect species viability in the area. Overburden disposed outside the mine pits, that is, not as backfill, would affect approximately 65 acres in the South Claims Area and 35 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area. The limestone kiln facility would consume 40,000 tons of coal and 30,000 tons of coke annually, resulting in significant air pollutant emissions. Most of the South Claims Area lies within a designated surface danger zone, meaning that the area may contain unexploded U.S. Army ordnance. The geological structure of the site and fossils therein would be irretrievably lost. Visual aesthetics and other recreational values of the affected area would be severely degraded during o0perations and somewhat affected even following reclamation. Fifteen Native American archaeological sites and one historic site would be affected; the status of these sites with respect to listing in the National Register of Historic Places has not been determined. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080535, 177 pages and maps, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Butte Resource Management Area KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIAN+CREEK+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=INDIAN+CREEK+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825114; 13672-080534_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825017; 13672-080534_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825007; 13672-080534_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824909; 13672-080534_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 36349533; 13672 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIAN CREEK MINE EXPANSION, BROADWATER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16387391; 13673 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a life-of-mine expansion of limestone and dolomite mining operations at the Indian Creek Mine, located approximately four miles west of Townsend, Montana, is proposed by Graymont Western US, Inc. Graymont proposes to extend mine operations 2.5 miles southward of the existing permit boundary into the South Claims Area and eastward into thee Dolomite Claims Area adjoining the northeast corner of the existing mine permit boundary. The proposed amendment would involve 1,940 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management to extend the mine life from 15 years to 50 years. The proposed action would result in a continuation of Graymont's existing operations in the Limestone Hills, including the development of mint pits, mine facilities, ore storage sites, soil salvage stockpiles, haul roads, and overburden disposal areas. A disturbance boundary encompassing 1,313 acres, including 968 acres in the South Claims Area and 345 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area, would be established within the proposed operating permit area. Actual surface disturbance for mining activities within the disturbance boundary would be less than the permitted disturbance to allow for flexible mine planning. Mine activities would continue in the same manner as current operations. Limestone and dolomite would be removed in layers, or "benches", approximately 20 feet thick. As mining progresses downward on the deposit, safety rock catch benches would be created to a minimum width of 20 feet at vertical intervals ranging from 20 to 60 feet. Ramp roads within the quarry would connect successive benches to provide truck and loader access. Overburden would be placed in disposal areas along the west boundary of the mine or used as backfill in depleted mine areas; up to 50 percent of the overburden would be replaced into the mine void as backfill. Final grading would re-establish contoured slopes. Reject rock resulting from ore crushing would be placed along the west side of the mine. Limestone ore would be transported to a new crusher site north of the reject rock disposal area. Crushed limestone would be transported via haul trucks to the existing crusher site and conveyed to the kilns located north of Indian Creek at the plant facility. Kiln dust and other emissions would be controlled via baghouse facilities. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the Modified Pit Backfill Alternative; the latter, which is the preferred alternative, would be identical to the applicant's proposal, except Graymont would be required to take additional measures with respect to reclamation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the mine would increase its life by 35 years, providing a products in high demand by the construction industry and employing local workers into the distant future. Reclamation stipulations under the preferred alternative would ensure the mining caused the least damage possible to the environment and maintained, as much as possible, area landscape contours. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance over 1,313 acres associated with the mine pit expansion would affect 343 acres in the South Claims Area and 214 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area. Mine-related activities would result in the loss of 451 acres of mountain mahogany habitat, which would represent 18 percent of such habitat in the Limestone Hills, though 680 acres of mahogany would be planted at a density of 20 seedlings per acre. Sagebrush and other native shrubs and trees would be removed during mining, reducing available habitat, including habitat for mule deer, Brewer's sparrow, and bighorn sheep. Up to 19 of the 23 federally protected townsendia plants in the Dolomite Claims Area would be removed during mining; removal of these individual plants would not likely affect species viability in the area. Overburden disposed outside the mine pits, that is, not as backfill, would affect approximately 65 acres in the South Claims Area and 35 acres in the Dolomite Claims Area. The limestone kiln facility would consume 40,000 tons of coal and 30,000 tons of coke annually, resulting in significant air pollutant emissions. Most of the South Claims Area lies within a designated surface danger zone, meaning that the area may contain unexploded U.S. Army ordnance. The geological structure of the site and fossils therein would be irretrievably lost. Visual aesthetics and other recreational values of the affected area would be severely degraded during o0perations and somewhat affected even following reclamation. Fifteen Native American archaeological sites and one historic site would be affected; the status of these sites with respect to listing in the National Register of Historic Places has not been determined. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act, and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080535, 177 pages and maps, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Mines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Butte Resource Management Area KW - Montana KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIAN+CREEK+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=INDIAN+CREEK+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BROADWATER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826300; 13664-080526_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826286; 13664-080526_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826276; 13664-080526_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826229; 13664-080526_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756825166; 13659-080521_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population control plan in Theodore Roosevelt National Park of North Dakota is proposed. In 1985, 47 elk were reintroduced into the South Unit of the TRNP. A forage allocation model was developed specifically for ungulates in the South Unit in the early 1990s; this model was use to inform park authorities of a maximum elk population objective. In 1993 and 2000, this population objective was exceeded, and live elk were relocated off-site to other federal lands, Indian tribes, and states for the implementation of reintroduction programs in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kentucky. In 2002, the director of the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) issued a memorandum regarding the NPS response to chronic wasting disease (CED), including a policy that limited elk from NPS units only when adequate testing had been completed. Since this memorandum was issued, the park has not tested enough elk for CWD to developed an informed opinion regarding the CWD status of the population. Population reductions via relocations have not taken place since 2000. In the absence of NPS management, or other effective population controls, the presence of high quality habitat in the park and surrounding agricultural areas creates the potential for the TRNP elk population to reach unnaturally high levels in the near future. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would be limited to vegetation and elk population monitoring in elk use areas. Alternative B would provide for direct elk population reduction via sharpshooters with firearms to lethally remove elk from the park during both initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative C, roundup and euthanasia would be employed for both the initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative D, the NPS would seek to conduct initial reduction and maintenance actions using CWD testing and relocation of elk. Under Alternative E, the NPS would attempt to increase elk hunting opportunities outside the park, coordinating its hunting management scheme with state actions designed to reduce and maintain elk population levels. Alternative F would rely on fertility control measures, focusing on female elk, as a maintenance tool only. A preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B through E elk management alternative would Preserve vegetation and other natural resources in the park from The impacts of elk overpopulation. Elk populations would no longer threaten forage levels needed by other species and the risk of CWD would decline significantly with the decline in the numbers of elk. The decline in CWD would allow relocation of excess elk to areas when elk could be reintroduced without the fear of spreading CWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A significant decline in the elk population would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors could be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. Female fertility control measures would have an unknown impact on population, as significant field testing has not yet been performed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080521, 347 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-50 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Dakota KW - Kentucky KW - South Dakota KW - Theodore Roosevelt National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Medora, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756825073; 13659-080521_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population control plan in Theodore Roosevelt National Park of North Dakota is proposed. In 1985, 47 elk were reintroduced into the South Unit of the TRNP. A forage allocation model was developed specifically for ungulates in the South Unit in the early 1990s; this model was use to inform park authorities of a maximum elk population objective. In 1993 and 2000, this population objective was exceeded, and live elk were relocated off-site to other federal lands, Indian tribes, and states for the implementation of reintroduction programs in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kentucky. In 2002, the director of the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) issued a memorandum regarding the NPS response to chronic wasting disease (CED), including a policy that limited elk from NPS units only when adequate testing had been completed. Since this memorandum was issued, the park has not tested enough elk for CWD to developed an informed opinion regarding the CWD status of the population. Population reductions via relocations have not taken place since 2000. In the absence of NPS management, or other effective population controls, the presence of high quality habitat in the park and surrounding agricultural areas creates the potential for the TRNP elk population to reach unnaturally high levels in the near future. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would be limited to vegetation and elk population monitoring in elk use areas. Alternative B would provide for direct elk population reduction via sharpshooters with firearms to lethally remove elk from the park during both initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative C, roundup and euthanasia would be employed for both the initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative D, the NPS would seek to conduct initial reduction and maintenance actions using CWD testing and relocation of elk. Under Alternative E, the NPS would attempt to increase elk hunting opportunities outside the park, coordinating its hunting management scheme with state actions designed to reduce and maintain elk population levels. Alternative F would rely on fertility control measures, focusing on female elk, as a maintenance tool only. A preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B through E elk management alternative would Preserve vegetation and other natural resources in the park from The impacts of elk overpopulation. Elk populations would no longer threaten forage levels needed by other species and the risk of CWD would decline significantly with the decline in the numbers of elk. The decline in CWD would allow relocation of excess elk to areas when elk could be reintroduced without the fear of spreading CWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A significant decline in the elk population would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors could be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. Female fertility control measures would have an unknown impact on population, as significant field testing has not yet been performed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080521, 347 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-50 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Dakota KW - Kentucky KW - South Dakota KW - Theodore Roosevelt National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Medora, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JOAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JOAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756824701; 13661-080523_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States. According to Utah authorities, Washington and Iron counties are among the fastest growing in the state, Washington County receiving 1,000 new residents each month. The population of Clark County, Nevada grew from 1.4 million to 1.9 million between 2000 and 2006. In response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah. This refinery recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. This action is not considered a "connected action" and will not be analyzed as part of the EIS process at hand. The proposed action would also include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four alternatives addressing pipeline alternative pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term loss increase in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and, potentially, habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat throughout the life of the pipeline. Four water supply wells would lie within 10 feet of the pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors exposed to development works. Of the 323 cultural resource sites in the study corridor, 161 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 24 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 01-0250F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080523, 311 pages and maps, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 08-45 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JOAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JOAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JOAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JOAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 756824690; 13661-080523_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States. According to Utah authorities, Washington and Iron counties are among the fastest growing in the state, Washington County receiving 1,000 new residents each month. The population of Clark County, Nevada grew from 1.4 million to 1.9 million between 2000 and 2006. In response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah. This refinery recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. This action is not considered a "connected action" and will not be analyzed as part of the EIS process at hand. The proposed action would also include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four alternatives addressing pipeline alternative pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term loss increase in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and, potentially, habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat throughout the life of the pipeline. Four water supply wells would lie within 10 feet of the pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors exposed to development works. Of the 323 cultural resource sites in the study corridor, 161 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 24 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 01-0250F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080523, 311 pages and maps, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 08-45 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JOAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=UNEV+PIPELINE%2C+SALT+LAKE%2C+TOOELE%2C+JOAB%2C+MILLARD%2C+IRON%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES+IN+UTAH+AND+CLARK+COUNTY+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN, BILLINGS AND MCKENZIE COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 36352473; 13659 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an elk population control plan in Theodore Roosevelt National Park of North Dakota is proposed. In 1985, 47 elk were reintroduced into the South Unit of the TRNP. A forage allocation model was developed specifically for ungulates in the South Unit in the early 1990s; this model was use to inform park authorities of a maximum elk population objective. In 1993 and 2000, this population objective was exceeded, and live elk were relocated off-site to other federal lands, Indian tribes, and states for the implementation of reintroduction programs in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kentucky. In 2002, the director of the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) issued a memorandum regarding the NPS response to chronic wasting disease (CED), including a policy that limited elk from NPS units only when adequate testing had been completed. Since this memorandum was issued, the park has not tested enough elk for CWD to developed an informed opinion regarding the CWD status of the population. Population reductions via relocations have not taken place since 2000. In the absence of NPS management, or other effective population controls, the presence of high quality habitat in the park and surrounding agricultural areas creates the potential for the TRNP elk population to reach unnaturally high levels in the near future. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would be limited to vegetation and elk population monitoring in elk use areas. Alternative B would provide for direct elk population reduction via sharpshooters with firearms to lethally remove elk from the park during both initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative C, roundup and euthanasia would be employed for both the initial reduction and maintenance phases. Under Alternative D, the NPS would seek to conduct initial reduction and maintenance actions using CWD testing and relocation of elk. Under Alternative E, the NPS would attempt to increase elk hunting opportunities outside the park, coordinating its hunting management scheme with state actions designed to reduce and maintain elk population levels. Alternative F would rely on fertility control measures, focusing on female elk, as a maintenance tool only. A preferred alternative has not yet been identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives B through E elk management alternative would Preserve vegetation and other natural resources in the park from The impacts of elk overpopulation. Elk populations would no longer threaten forage levels needed by other species and the risk of CWD would decline significantly with the decline in the numbers of elk. The decline in CWD would allow relocation of excess elk to areas when elk could be reintroduced without the fear of spreading CWD. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A significant decline in the elk population would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors could be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. Female fertility control measures would have an unknown impact on population, as significant field testing has not yet been performed. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080521, 347 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-50 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Dakota KW - Kentucky KW - South Dakota KW - Theodore Roosevelt National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=THEODORE+ROOSEVELT+NATIONAL+PARK+ELK+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BILLINGS+AND+MCKENZIE+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Medora, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE BETWEEN NORTH POLE AND DELTA JUNCTION, ALASKA (SBT FINANCE DOCKET NO. 35468). AN - 36344774; 13662 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of an 80-mile rail line from North Pole to Delta Junction in Alaska is proposed by the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). The existing ARRC network extends from Seward through Anchorage and Fairbanks, ending at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) through the Eielson Branch rail line. The Eielson Branch line serves Eielson AFB and the North Pole Refinery. At present, commercial freight, other than that associated with Eielson AFB and the refinery, generally enters and leaves the study area by truck via Richardson Highway (Alaska Route 4, extending from Valdez to Delta Junction, and Alaska Route 2, extending from Delta Junction to Fairbanks) or the Alaska Highway (Alaska Route 2 from Delta Junction to Tok and beyond). To be known as the Northern Rail Extension, the proposed single-track line would be located in Interior Alaska, southeast of the city of Fairbanks, and would constitute an extension of the existing rail line that ends at Eielson Air Force Base. The rail line would lie within a 200-foot-wide rights-of-way that would also contain, sidings at several locations, a power transmission line, a buried communications cable, and an access road. ARRC would construct other facilities, such as communications towers and a passenger platform at Delta Junction, to support rail operations. The project would include the construction several culverts and bridges. Several routing options are contained within the proposed action. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The new line would extend the freight and passenger rail service the ARRC provides to the region, provide a transportation alternative to Richardson Highway for individuals traveling between Fairbanks and Delta Junction, and allow year-round ground access to the Tanana Flats and Donnely training areas in the southwest and west sides of the Tanana River for U.S. Army and Air Force personnel and freight. The rail line would be least susceptible to inclement winter weather than the highway and could increase tourism to destinations within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation would be cleared and soils and permafrost disturbed within the 200-foot rights-of-way, resulting in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat and the exacerbation of erosion and sedimentation in the area. Forested wetlands, scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands, and other significant water resource sites would be displaced or degraded. Habitat for bear, caribou, moose, wolf, and furbearers would be lost. Numerous streams and rivers, some of which provide top quality fish habitat, would be traversed. Significant cultural and recreational resources would be adversely affected. Noise and vibrations from train operations would exceed federal standards at hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Along some sections of the track, facilities and trains would be inconsistent with federal visual resource management objectives. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), 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 General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080524, Summary-41 pages, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--571 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Ice Environments KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Eielson Air Force Base KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+NORTH+POLE+AND+DELTA+JUNCTION%2C+ALASKA+%28SBT+FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+35468%29.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+NORTH+POLE+AND+DELTA+JUNCTION%2C+ALASKA+%28SBT+FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+35468%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNEV PIPELINE, SALT LAKE, TOOELE, JOAB, MILLARD, IRON, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN UTAH AND CLARK COUNTY IN NEVADA. AN - 36344174; 13661 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a petroleum products pipeline system in Utah and northern Nevada is proposed. Southern Utah and Nevada continue to be among the fastest growing areas of the United States. According to Utah authorities, Washington and Iron counties are among the fastest growing in the state, Washington County receiving 1,000 new residents each month. The population of Clark County, Nevada grew from 1.4 million to 1.9 million between 2000 and 2006. In response to the increased energy demand caused by this growth, UNEV Pipeline, LLC proposes to provide for a 399-mile, 12-inch main pipeline extending from an inlet pumping station at the refinery complex near Woods Cross, Utah to a terminal facility located at Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County. The pipeline inlet would be located near Holly Corporation's Woods Cross refinery in Utah. This refinery recently upgraded its crude oil processing capability enabling it to process black wax crude oil and heavy Canadian crude oils. This action is not considered a "connected action" and will not be analyzed as part of the EIS process at hand. The proposed action would also include a 2.4-mile, 10-inch lateral line terminating at the Salt Lake City Airport and a 10-mile 8-inch lateral line and terminal near Cedar City, Utah. The southern section of the pipeline would generally follow the existing Kern River pipeline corridor, which provides rights-of-way for two Kern River Pipeline Company natural gas pipelines, the last of the two being laid in 2003. Permanent facilities would include access roads to all aboveground structures, including valves and pig launchers and receivers. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and four alternatives addressing pipeline alternative pipeline routes that would alter the length of the main pipeline by three to 63 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The UNEV pipeline would be available to accept petroleum products from multiple refineries in the Salt Lake City area as well as in Wyoming and Montana. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During eight-month construction phase of the project, soil disturbance and destruction of vegetation within the 75-foot-wide rights-of-way encompassing 3,882 acres, would result in a short-term loss increase in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Wildlife habitat affected would include big game ranges and, potentially, habitat for giant four-wing saltbush, raptors, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit, all of which are federally protected species. Noise from pumping plants would drive wildlife from nearby habitat throughout the life of the pipeline. Four water supply wells would lie within 10 feet of the pipeline path. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment and vehicles that would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of visitors exposed to development works. Of the 323 cultural resource sites in the study corridor, 161 have tentatively been determined to be eligible for including in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction workers could encounter up to 24 hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs on the Kern River pipeline project, see 01-0124D, Volume 25, Number 2 and 01-0250F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080523, 311 pages and maps, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 08-45 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-01-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Child+Sexual+Abuse%3A+Research%2C+Treatment%2C+%26+Program+Innovations+for+Victims%2C+Survivors%2C+%26+Offenders&rft.issn=10538712&rft_id=info:doi/10.1300%2FJ070v10n01_04 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 756825376; 13657-080519_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Action is needed to address declining forest regeneration and to ensure the protection and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife, and the protection of cultural resources. Ecosystem studies have determined that excessive browsing by deer in VFNHP has also adversely affected the natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest landscapes. In addition, deer in the vicinity of the park suffer from chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other risk factors have resulted in an elevated risk level for the oversized park population. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation and special status plant species,, white-tailed deer population, other wildlife populations, cultural landscapes, historic structures, archaeological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics and land uses adjacent to the park, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate existing the deer management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would implement a nonlethal management program involving rotational fencing of selected forest areas of the park and the use of reproductive controls, when available and feasible. The park would also increase its CWD surveillance efforts. Alternative C would combine culling the animals via sharpshooting with firearms with limited capture and euthanasia efforts. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would include the reproductive controls that would be implemented under Alternative B and the lethal actions included in Alternative C. Both alternatives C and D would implement a full CWD response plan, which includes increased surveillance and reduction of the herd to minimize the probability of a CWD epidemic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide a deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, and restoration or native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the VFNHP. Damage done by deer overbrowsing within this historic landscape would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080519, 491 pages and maps, December 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-47 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Valley Forge National Historical Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALK MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - BALK MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756825215; 13656-080518_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of mining operations at the Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. The gold mine expansion would be located on public land approximately 65 miles northwest of Ely. The proposed action would include expansion of open-pit mines, rock disposal facilities, heap leach facilities, and haul roads, as well as development of one new pit and waste rock facility, a truck shop, and growth medium stockpiles. In addition, the proposed action would combine the existing BMM plan of operations boundary and the Mooney Basin Operations Area boundary into one plan of operations, to be known as the BMM North Operations Area Project. The enlarged area would encompass 16,464 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. Under the currently approved plan of operations, it is anticipated that activities would be completed in 2009 for both the BMM and Mooney Operations Area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would include a redesign of the Mooney Basin leach pad to reduce the disturbance footprint. Te accommodate the smaller footprint, the BMM pad would be modified to facilitate additional ore. If either alternative actions were selected as preferred in the final, all aspects of the proposed action, other than those described for the alternative considered, would be incorporated into the implementation of the mine expansion project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance at within the operations area boundaries, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with the associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected by the mine expansion include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Fossils would be removed and the geological structure of the site irretrievably altered. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. Once the mine had been reclaimed, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS on a 1995 expansion of the BMM, see 95-0096D, Volume 19, Number 1 and 95-0424F, Volume 19, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080518, 441 pages and maps, December 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/WL-GIO8/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALK+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALK+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 756825095; 13657-080519_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Action is needed to address declining forest regeneration and to ensure the protection and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife, and the protection of cultural resources. Ecosystem studies have determined that excessive browsing by deer in VFNHP has also adversely affected the natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest landscapes. In addition, deer in the vicinity of the park suffer from chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other risk factors have resulted in an elevated risk level for the oversized park population. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation and special status plant species,, white-tailed deer population, other wildlife populations, cultural landscapes, historic structures, archaeological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics and land uses adjacent to the park, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate existing the deer management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would implement a nonlethal management program involving rotational fencing of selected forest areas of the park and the use of reproductive controls, when available and feasible. The park would also increase its CWD surveillance efforts. Alternative C would combine culling the animals via sharpshooting with firearms with limited capture and euthanasia efforts. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would include the reproductive controls that would be implemented under Alternative B and the lethal actions included in Alternative C. Both alternatives C and D would implement a full CWD response plan, which includes increased surveillance and reduction of the herd to minimize the probability of a CWD epidemic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide a deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, and restoration or native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the VFNHP. Damage done by deer overbrowsing within this historic landscape would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080519, 491 pages and maps, December 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-47 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Valley Forge National Historical Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALK MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - BALK MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756824937; 13656-080518_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of mining operations at the Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. The gold mine expansion would be located on public land approximately 65 miles northwest of Ely. The proposed action would include expansion of open-pit mines, rock disposal facilities, heap leach facilities, and haul roads, as well as development of one new pit and waste rock facility, a truck shop, and growth medium stockpiles. In addition, the proposed action would combine the existing BMM plan of operations boundary and the Mooney Basin Operations Area boundary into one plan of operations, to be known as the BMM North Operations Area Project. The enlarged area would encompass 16,464 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. Under the currently approved plan of operations, it is anticipated that activities would be completed in 2009 for both the BMM and Mooney Operations Area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would include a redesign of the Mooney Basin leach pad to reduce the disturbance footprint. Te accommodate the smaller footprint, the BMM pad would be modified to facilitate additional ore. If either alternative actions were selected as preferred in the final, all aspects of the proposed action, other than those described for the alternative considered, would be incorporated into the implementation of the mine expansion project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance at within the operations area boundaries, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with the associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected by the mine expansion include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Fossils would be removed and the geological structure of the site irretrievably altered. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. Once the mine had been reclaimed, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS on a 1995 expansion of the BMM, see 95-0096D, Volume 19, Number 1 and 95-0424F, Volume 19, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080518, 441 pages and maps, December 11, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/WL-GIO8/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALK+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALK+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALK MOUNTAIN MINE NORTH OPERATIONS AREA PROJECT, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36344046; 13656 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of mining operations at the Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) in White Pine County, Nevada is proposed. The gold mine expansion would be located on public land approximately 65 miles northwest of Ely. The proposed action would include expansion of open-pit mines, rock disposal facilities, heap leach facilities, and haul roads, as well as development of one new pit and waste rock facility, a truck shop, and growth medium stockpiles. In addition, the proposed action would combine the existing BMM plan of operations boundary and the Mooney Basin Operations Area boundary into one plan of operations, to be known as the BMM North Operations Area Project. The enlarged area would encompass 16,464 acres, including 16,391 acres of public lands and 73 acres of private lands. Under the currently approved plan of operations, it is anticipated that activities would be completed in 2009 for both the BMM and Mooney Operations Area. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The Partial Backfill Alternative (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would include partial backfill of up to six open pits, resulting in smaller rock disposal areas. The Mooney Basin Heap Leach Pad Alternative would include a redesign of the Mooney Basin leach pad to reduce the disturbance footprint. Te accommodate the smaller footprint, the BMM pad would be modified to facilitate additional ore. If either alternative actions were selected as preferred in the final, all aspects of the proposed action, other than those described for the alternative considered, would be incorporated into the implementation of the mine expansion project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposal would extend mine life by 10 years, generating significant volumes of gold and employing 110 mine-related workers and result in the creation of 33 indirect and 50 induced jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in 3,920 acres of additional disturbance at within the operations area boundaries, resulting in impedance of soil development and temporary reduction or elimination of biological activity during stockpiling of soils. Pinyon-juniper woodland, big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and mountain sagebrush communities would be destroyed, along with the associated wildlife habitat. State-protected and federally recognized sensitive species that could be affected by the mine expansion include a variety of raptors and bats, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, two reptile species, and a variety of other birds. Denuding the area would provide opportunities for infestation expansions by the eight invasive plant species known to the area. Fossils would be removed and the geological structure of the site irretrievably altered. Mining operations would result in a loss of 98 animal unit months (AUMs) in the Warm Springs grazing allotment, which currently provides for 7,709 AUMs. Once the mine had been reclaimed, the allotment would be affected by the permanent loss of 28 AUMs. Recreational access to the mining would be eliminated, and the aesthetic and other recreational values of the area would be significantly degraded. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS on a 1995 expansion of the BMM, see 95-0096D, Volume 19, Number 1 and 95-0424F, Volume 19, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080518, 441 pages and maps, December 11, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/WL-GIO8/05+1793 KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALK+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=BALK+MOUNTAIN+MINE+NORTH+OPERATIONS+AREA+PROJECT%2C+WHITE+PINE+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, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36343716; 13657 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Valley Forge National Historic Park (VFNHP) at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania is proposed. Action is needed to address declining forest regeneration and to ensure the protection and restoration of native vegetation and wildlife, and the protection of cultural resources. Ecosystem studies have determined that excessive browsing by deer in VFNHP has also adversely affected the natural distribution, abundance, and diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest landscapes. In addition, deer in the vicinity of the park suffer from chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other risk factors have resulted in an elevated risk level for the oversized park population. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to vegetation and special status plant species,, white-tailed deer population, other wildlife populations, cultural landscapes, historic structures, archaeological resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics and land uses adjacent to the park, and public safety. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate existing the deer management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B would implement a nonlethal management program involving rotational fencing of selected forest areas of the park and the use of reproductive controls, when available and feasible. The park would also increase its CWD surveillance efforts. Alternative C would combine culling the animals via sharpshooting with firearms with limited capture and euthanasia efforts. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would include the reproductive controls that would be implemented under Alternative B and the lethal actions included in Alternative C. Both alternatives C and D would implement a full CWD response plan, which includes increased surveillance and reduction of the herd to minimize the probability of a CWD epidemic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would provide a deer management strategy that supports protection, preservation, and restoration or native vegetation and other natural and cultural resources within the VFNHP. Damage done by deer overbrowsing within this historic landscape would be reversed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer and the biocontrol measures on the VFNHP, which is run very much like a wildlife preserve with respect to habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080519, 491 pages and maps, December 11, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-47 KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Valley Forge National Historical Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VALLEY+FORGE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+KING+OF+PRUSSIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HARVEST OF GLAUCOUS-WINGED GULL EGGS BY HUNA TLINGIT IN GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HARVEST OF GLAUCOUS-WINGED GULL EGGS BY HUNA TLINGIT IN GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 756824740; 13654-080516_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of subsistence harvesting of glaucous-winged gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park (GBNP) by the Hoona Tlingit, a Native Alaskan tribe, is proposed. GBNP is the traditional homeland of the Hoona Tlingit, who traditionally harvested eggs at gull rookeries in the bay area prior to, and following, park establishment in 1925. Egg collection was curtailed in the 1960s as both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would not propose legislation to authorize egg harvest, maintaining the status quo, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would propose legislation to authorize harvest of gull eggs at up to two designated locations on a single pre-selected date on or before June 9th of each year. An annual harvest plan would be prepared by the U.S. Park Service (NPS) and the Hoonah Indian Association (HIA) by May 1st of each tear. The plan would list all suitable harvest locations based on annual monitoring and harvest history and would identify u to two sites from which the HIA members could harvest eggs. Alternative 3 would provide for legislation authorizing the harvest of gull eggs at several designated locations in the park on two separate dates. The first harvest would be scheduled on or before June 9th; a second harvest at the same sites would occur within nine days of the first harvest. The logistics of vessel transportation between Hoonah and Glacier Bay, travel within the bay, and harvest time at sites would limit the number of sites that could be visited on a given day. Depending on weather and other conditions, as well as the sites selected, harvest would likely occur at three to four sites. The NPS and HIA would prepare an annual harvest plan as described for Alternative 2. Regardless of the action alternative chosen, harvest locations, method of harvest, harvest group size, and monitoring activities would be the same. Under either alternative, harvest locations would be selected from the following sites: Boulder Island, Flapjack Island, Lone Island, Geikie Rock, Graves Island (Outer Coast), Hugh Miller Islet, Margerie Glacier, Mt. Wright, Muir Inlet cliffs, Muir Inlet shoreline between Riggs and Muir glaciers, Sealers Island, Sebree Island, South Marble Island, Sturgess Island, and Tlingit Point Islet. The list could be expanded as information on new colonies becomes available. If vegetational succession in nesting areas of diminished nesting populations, the park superintendent could remove such sites from the list of potential harvest locations. The salient aspects of each harvest trip would be reported formally. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By authorizing harvest, the proposed legislation would help support the gathering traditions and diet of the Tlingit people, maintaining this aspect of their heritage. BY limiting locations and times for gathering eggs, the legislation would prevent excessive collection of eggs that could endanger the glaucous-winged gull population. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in the annual harvest of as many as 284 eggs, leaving 1,166 eggs to hatch throughout Glacier Bay. Female gulls would lay approximately 177 more eggs than under Alterative 1. Under Alternative 2 female gulls would lay approximately 177 more eggs than under Alterative 1, but approximately 56 fewer chicks would be hatched. Across all nesting areas, Alternative 2 would yield 4.5 percent fewer chicks than Alternative 1; 6.7 fewer chicks would be produced on South Marble Island and Lone Island. Alternative 3 would result in the harvest of as many as 856 eggs, leaving 954 eggs to hatch. Female gulls would lay 410 more eggs than under Alternative 1, but approximately 267 fewer chicks would hatch. Across all nesting areas, this alternative would yield 22 percent fewer chicks than Alternative 1. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 106-455. JF - EPA number: 080516, 106 pages, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-49 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Hunting Management KW - Indian Reservations KW - Legislation KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 106-455, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HARVEST+OF+GLAUCOUS-WINGED+GULL+EGGS+BY+HUNA+TLINGIT+IN+GLACIER+BAY+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=HARVEST+OF+GLAUCOUS-WINGED+GULL+EGGS+BY+HUNA+TLINGIT+IN+GLACIER+BAY+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HARVEST OF GLAUCOUS-WINGED GULL EGGS BY HUNA TLINGIT IN GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 36344759; 13654 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of subsistence harvesting of glaucous-winged gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park (GBNP) by the Hoona Tlingit, a Native Alaskan tribe, is proposed. GBNP is the traditional homeland of the Hoona Tlingit, who traditionally harvested eggs at gull rookeries in the bay area prior to, and following, park establishment in 1925. Egg collection was curtailed in the 1960s as both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would not propose legislation to authorize egg harvest, maintaining the status quo, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would propose legislation to authorize harvest of gull eggs at up to two designated locations on a single pre-selected date on or before June 9th of each year. An annual harvest plan would be prepared by the U.S. Park Service (NPS) and the Hoonah Indian Association (HIA) by May 1st of each tear. The plan would list all suitable harvest locations based on annual monitoring and harvest history and would identify u to two sites from which the HIA members could harvest eggs. Alternative 3 would provide for legislation authorizing the harvest of gull eggs at several designated locations in the park on two separate dates. The first harvest would be scheduled on or before June 9th; a second harvest at the same sites would occur within nine days of the first harvest. The logistics of vessel transportation between Hoonah and Glacier Bay, travel within the bay, and harvest time at sites would limit the number of sites that could be visited on a given day. Depending on weather and other conditions, as well as the sites selected, harvest would likely occur at three to four sites. The NPS and HIA would prepare an annual harvest plan as described for Alternative 2. Regardless of the action alternative chosen, harvest locations, method of harvest, harvest group size, and monitoring activities would be the same. Under either alternative, harvest locations would be selected from the following sites: Boulder Island, Flapjack Island, Lone Island, Geikie Rock, Graves Island (Outer Coast), Hugh Miller Islet, Margerie Glacier, Mt. Wright, Muir Inlet cliffs, Muir Inlet shoreline between Riggs and Muir glaciers, Sealers Island, Sebree Island, South Marble Island, Sturgess Island, and Tlingit Point Islet. The list could be expanded as information on new colonies becomes available. If vegetational succession in nesting areas of diminished nesting populations, the park superintendent could remove such sites from the list of potential harvest locations. The salient aspects of each harvest trip would be reported formally. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By authorizing harvest, the proposed legislation would help support the gathering traditions and diet of the Tlingit people, maintaining this aspect of their heritage. BY limiting locations and times for gathering eggs, the legislation would prevent excessive collection of eggs that could endanger the glaucous-winged gull population. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in the annual harvest of as many as 284 eggs, leaving 1,166 eggs to hatch throughout Glacier Bay. Female gulls would lay approximately 177 more eggs than under Alterative 1. Under Alternative 2 female gulls would lay approximately 177 more eggs than under Alterative 1, but approximately 56 fewer chicks would be hatched. Across all nesting areas, Alternative 2 would yield 4.5 percent fewer chicks than Alternative 1; 6.7 fewer chicks would be produced on South Marble Island and Lone Island. Alternative 3 would result in the harvest of as many as 856 eggs, leaving 954 eggs to hatch. Female gulls would lay 410 more eggs than under Alternative 1, but approximately 267 fewer chicks would hatch. Across all nesting areas, this alternative would yield 22 percent fewer chicks than Alternative 1. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Public Law 106-455. JF - EPA number: 080516, 106 pages, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-49 KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Hunting Management KW - Indian Reservations KW - Legislation KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Management KW - Alaska KW - Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 106-455, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HARVEST+OF+GLAUCOUS-WINGED+GULL+EGGS+BY+HUNA+TLINGIT+IN+GLACIER+BAY+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=HARVEST+OF+GLAUCOUS-WINGED+GULL+EGGS+BY+HUNA+TLINGIT+IN+GLACIER+BAY+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756825121; 13761-080509_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756824788; 13761-080509_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756824779; 13761-080509_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 16387033; 13761 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK, FREDERICK AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK, FREDERICK AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 756825072; 13751-080499_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Catoctin Mountain Park in Frederick and Washington counties, Maryland is proposed. Due to an excessive deer population, the park has suffered declining forest regeneration and alteration of natural processes that support native vegetation, wildlife, and cultural landscapes. Excessive deer browsing has reduced forest regeneration, resulting in adverse alteration of the forest structure, composition, and wildlife habitat. Continuation of excessive browsing could adversely affect the natural distribution, abundance, ad diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has already impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest systems that comprise the natural vegetation component of the Camp Misty Mount and Camp Greentop cultural landscapes. Furthermore, action is needed to foster greater cooperation with state and local government authorities currently implementing deer management actions to help achieve mutual deer management goals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The existing regime involves limited fencing, use of repellents in landscaped areas, monitoring, data management, and research. Under Alternative B, several nonlethal actions, such as large-scale enclosure fencing, increased use of repellants in limited areas, and reproductive control of does, would be taken to protect forest seedlings, promote forest regeneration, and gradually reduce deer number in the park. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred Alternative, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer in certain circumstances where sharpshooting would not be appropriate. Alternative D would combine elements from alternatives B and C and include sharpshooting, capture, and euthanasia as well as reproductive control of does. Costs of all lethal actions considered under the preferred Alternative are estimated to range from $738,600 to $941,100. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would support forest regeneration and provide for long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of native species and cultural landscapes within the park and lands in the vicinity of the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reproductive controls and the shooting of deer would disturb the sensibilities of some visitors where the proposed actions were visible or audible; reproductive controls would likely occur during high visitation periods, but sharpshooting activities could be conducted at night, removing the activity from the visitors' experience of the park. The program would place additional demands on local Park Service staff. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0075D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080499, 475 pages, December 2, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Catoctin Mountain Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CATOCTIN+MOUNTAIN+PARK%2C+FREDERICK+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CATOCTIN+MOUNTAIN+PARK%2C+FREDERICK+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Thurmont, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK, FREDERICK AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK, FREDERICK AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 756824763; 13751-080499_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Catoctin Mountain Park in Frederick and Washington counties, Maryland is proposed. Due to an excessive deer population, the park has suffered declining forest regeneration and alteration of natural processes that support native vegetation, wildlife, and cultural landscapes. Excessive deer browsing has reduced forest regeneration, resulting in adverse alteration of the forest structure, composition, and wildlife habitat. Continuation of excessive browsing could adversely affect the natural distribution, abundance, ad diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has already impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest systems that comprise the natural vegetation component of the Camp Misty Mount and Camp Greentop cultural landscapes. Furthermore, action is needed to foster greater cooperation with state and local government authorities currently implementing deer management actions to help achieve mutual deer management goals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The existing regime involves limited fencing, use of repellents in landscaped areas, monitoring, data management, and research. Under Alternative B, several nonlethal actions, such as large-scale enclosure fencing, increased use of repellants in limited areas, and reproductive control of does, would be taken to protect forest seedlings, promote forest regeneration, and gradually reduce deer number in the park. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred Alternative, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer in certain circumstances where sharpshooting would not be appropriate. Alternative D would combine elements from alternatives B and C and include sharpshooting, capture, and euthanasia as well as reproductive control of does. Costs of all lethal actions considered under the preferred Alternative are estimated to range from $738,600 to $941,100. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would support forest regeneration and provide for long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of native species and cultural landscapes within the park and lands in the vicinity of the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reproductive controls and the shooting of deer would disturb the sensibilities of some visitors where the proposed actions were visible or audible; reproductive controls would likely occur during high visitation periods, but sharpshooting activities could be conducted at night, removing the activity from the visitors' experience of the park. The program would place additional demands on local Park Service staff. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0075D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080499, 475 pages, December 2, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Catoctin Mountain Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CATOCTIN+MOUNTAIN+PARK%2C+FREDERICK+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CATOCTIN+MOUNTAIN+PARK%2C+FREDERICK+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Thurmont, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, CATOCTIN MOUNTAIN PARK, FREDERICK AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 36343688; 13751 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Catoctin Mountain Park in Frederick and Washington counties, Maryland is proposed. Due to an excessive deer population, the park has suffered declining forest regeneration and alteration of natural processes that support native vegetation, wildlife, and cultural landscapes. Excessive deer browsing has reduced forest regeneration, resulting in adverse alteration of the forest structure, composition, and wildlife habitat. Continuation of excessive browsing could adversely affect the natural distribution, abundance, ad diversity of native species, including species of special concern, and has already impacted native shrubs, trees, and forest systems that comprise the natural vegetation component of the Camp Misty Mount and Camp Greentop cultural landscapes. Furthermore, action is needed to foster greater cooperation with state and local government authorities currently implementing deer management actions to help achieve mutual deer management goals. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing deer management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The existing regime involves limited fencing, use of repellents in landscaped areas, monitoring, data management, and research. Under Alternative B, several nonlethal actions, such as large-scale enclosure fencing, increased use of repellants in limited areas, and reproductive control of does, would be taken to protect forest seedlings, promote forest regeneration, and gradually reduce deer number in the park. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred Alternative, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer in certain circumstances where sharpshooting would not be appropriate. Alternative D would combine elements from alternatives B and C and include sharpshooting, capture, and euthanasia as well as reproductive control of does. Costs of all lethal actions considered under the preferred Alternative are estimated to range from $738,600 to $941,100. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would support forest regeneration and provide for long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of native species and cultural landscapes within the park and lands in the vicinity of the park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Reproductive controls and the shooting of deer would disturb the sensibilities of some visitors where the proposed actions were visible or audible; reproductive controls would likely occur during high visitation periods, but sharpshooting activities could be conducted at night, removing the activity from the visitors' experience of the park. The program would place additional demands on local Park Service staff. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0075D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080499, 475 pages, December 2, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - National Parks KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Catoctin Mountain Park KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Teresa&rft.date=2014-05-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=590&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Offender+Therapy+and+Comparative+Criminology&rft.issn=0306624X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177%2F0306624X12474975 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Thurmont, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 1 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824962; 13748-080496_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 2 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824773; 13748-080496_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 4 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824707; 13748-080496_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 5 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824702; 13748-080496_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 3 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824696; 13748-080496_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 15222961; 13748 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15222961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756826173; 13745-080493_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825723; 13745-080493_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756825236; 13737-080485_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825205; 13745-080493_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825203; 13745-080493_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825184; 13745-080493_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825180; 13745-080493_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756825132; 13737-080485_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825104; 13745-080493_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756824994; 13737-080485_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756824987; 13737-080485_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756824980; 13737-080485_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 756824952; 13737-080485_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824699; 13718-070511_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Bay Management Area of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 22.6 million acres, of which 2.5 million acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay areas of southwestern Alaska. Resource uses within the management area include forestry, livestock and reindeer grazing, and minerals extraction, recreation, renewable energy developments. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to oil and gas exploration and development leasing and its impact on sustainable natural resources and subsistence activities, land tenure adjustments to consolidate discontinuous blocks of public land to ease management, determination of the means by which access is to be provided to BLM managed lands for various management purposes, designation of special management areas, and designation of rivers for consideration for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, were considered in the final EIS of November 2007. The preferred Alternative (Alterative D), identified as such in the final EIS and in the Record of Decision published as the document at hand, would balance resource protection with resource exploitation. Withdrawals under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) would be revoked, and the majority of unencumbered lands, and any associated lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development subject to seasonal or other restrictions and to mineral location. Approximately 3,999 acres would continue to be withdrawn under ANCSA. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) would be established, namely, the Carter Spit ACEC; plans would be developed and specific measures adopted to protect values in this area. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral entry. No river corridors would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specific lands n the Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay areas would be managed up to 0.5 mile from established winter trail or road systems at Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. BLM lands in the full visible foreground up to one mile from the boundaries of coastal scenic units would be managed at VRM Class IV. The ACEC would be managed for VRM Class III. All BLM-managed lands within the planning area. All other BLM lands would be managed at VRM Class IV. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on all BLM lands would be limited, allowing for limitations to be places on OHV use to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and/or recreation resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for protection, use, and enhancement of resources. The plan would provide site-specific management guidance on 1.2 million acres of unencumbered BLM-administered land as well as any of the 1.3 million acres of state-selected or Native American-selected lands that remain under BLM jurisdiction until such lands are conveyed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation, particularly extraction of oil and gas, would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Exploitative uses would also place pressure on subsistence activities and reduce the extent of rangeland useful for grazing. Finally forest products exploitation and mineral extraction and the associated road construction would mar visual aesthetics in the area and generally reduce the pristine values associated with the coastal region. OHV restrictions would reduce access to and within some locales within the Bay Area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0553D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0033F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070511, 118 pages and maps, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-09/001+1610+010 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Alaska KW - Bay Resource Management Area KW - Bristol Bay KW - Goodnews Bay KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824699?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36352455; 13718 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for the Bay Management Area of Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 22.6 million acres, of which 2.5 million acres are public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, in the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay areas of southwestern Alaska. Resource uses within the management area include forestry, livestock and reindeer grazing, and minerals extraction, recreation, renewable energy developments. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to oil and gas exploration and development leasing and its impact on sustainable natural resources and subsistence activities, land tenure adjustments to consolidate discontinuous blocks of public land to ease management, determination of the means by which access is to be provided to BLM managed lands for various management purposes, designation of special management areas, and designation of rivers for consideration for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, were considered in the final EIS of November 2007. The preferred Alternative (Alterative D), identified as such in the final EIS and in the Record of Decision published as the document at hand, would balance resource protection with resource exploitation. Withdrawals under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) would be revoked, and the majority of unencumbered lands, and any associated lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development subject to seasonal or other restrictions and to mineral location. Approximately 3,999 acres would continue to be withdrawn under ANCSA. One area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) would be established, namely, the Carter Spit ACEC; plans would be developed and specific measures adopted to protect values in this area. The ACEC would be closed to salable mineral entry. No river corridors would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specific lands n the Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay areas would be managed up to 0.5 mile from established winter trail or road systems at Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. BLM lands in the full visible foreground up to one mile from the boundaries of coastal scenic units would be managed at VRM Class IV. The ACEC would be managed for VRM Class III. All BLM-managed lands within the planning area. All other BLM lands would be managed at VRM Class IV. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on all BLM lands would be limited, allowing for limitations to be places on OHV use to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and/or recreation resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for protection, use, and enhancement of resources. The plan would provide site-specific management guidance on 1.2 million acres of unencumbered BLM-administered land as well as any of the 1.3 million acres of state-selected or Native American-selected lands that remain under BLM jurisdiction until such lands are conveyed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral exploitation, particularly extraction of oil and gas, would disturb soils and destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Exploitative uses would also place pressure on subsistence activities and reduce the extent of rangeland useful for grazing. Finally forest products exploitation and mineral extraction and the associated road construction would mar visual aesthetics in the area and generally reduce the pristine values associated with the coastal region. OHV restrictions would reduce access to and within some locales within the Bay Area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0553D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0033F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 070511, 118 pages and maps, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AK/PL-09/001+1610+010 KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Alaska KW - Bay Resource Management Area KW - Bristol Bay KW - Goodnews Bay KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=BAY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOCORRO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION, SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36348302; 13745 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for land and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the 8.7-million-acre Socorro Resource Management Area located in Socorro and Catron counties, New Mexico is proposed. The BLM currently manages 1.5 million acres of surface land and 6.0 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. The Socorro Area is currently managed under a plan established in 1989; since then boundary changes and changes in resource conditions and resource use patterns have rendered the current management plan anachronistic. The Socorro Area also includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, and the state of New Mexico. Finally over 100,000 acres within the area lie within Indian reservations and the area contains 2.5 million acres in private ownership. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. All alternatives would include management stipulations and measures addressing air quality, soil and water resources, vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive plant species, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat, habitat for special status species, wild horses, wildlife fire ecology and management, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, wilderness characteristics, cave and karst ecosystems, lands and realty, forestry and woodland management, rangeland management, mineral resources exploitation, recreation resources, renewable energy resources, transportation and travel management, hazardous materials and public safety, special area designations, and social and economic conditions. As is the case for the other alternatives, the preferred Alternative (Alternative B) provides land and mineral leasing allocation acreages for all categories of land use and mineral to be extracted via leaseholders. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred Alternative would provide for a balance of resource use and natural resources conservation. The revised plan would maintain and improve natural, cultural, and open space values through partnerships and collaboration, for the enjoyment and use of a growing and diverse population of current and future generations. The plan would allow the development of partnerships with federal, state, and local entities that could broaden involvement in the planning process and widen acceptance and ownership in the future management of public lands. The revision of the 1989 plan would allow local counties and communities to explore their common needs, such as planning for transportation, emergency services, law enforcement, infrastructure, and tourism or recreational opportunities appropriate for the surrounding communities. This planning effort would be comprehensive, evaluating existing management plans and resolving or addressing issues within the region identified through public, interagency, and within-agency scoping efforts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to mineral extraction, within the study area would result in the loss of vegetation and the disturbance of soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, geologic structures, and paleontological and cultural resource sites as well as erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface waters. Visual resources would be marred due to mineral extraction structures and structures related to other energy uses within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080493, Final EIS--477 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-09-02-1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Property Disposition KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Socorro Resource Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOCORRO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+REVISION%2C+SOCORRO+AND+CATRON+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Socorro, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMITS AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, SOUTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36345415; 13737 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to three applicants intending to implement development projects in the City of Caliente and southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada is proposed. The area covered by the ITP encompasses 1.8 million acres and includes all non-federal lands within that area. An ITP allows successful applicants to take federally listed endangered species incidental to approved development within the species' habitats, according to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act of 1968. Species of particular concern in the coverage area of desert tortoise and southwestern willow flycatcher. Congress recently enacted two public laws that directed the auction of public lands to provide for economic development in Lincoln County. Subsequently, the Board of Lincoln County Commissioners authorized development of the Southeastern Lincoln Habitat Conservation Plan (SLCHCP) to support an application for an ITP so that non-federal lands would be available to accommodate project growth in the area without being vulnerable to potential violations association with the take of species protected under the ESA. The applicants, who would commit to implementing the SLCHCP as a result of the issuance of the ITP, are Lincoln County, the City of Caliente, and Union Pacific Railroad. Developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property would be covered under Lincoln County's ITP upon payment of a disturbance fee assessed by the County and payable at the time they obtain a building or grading permit. Private landowners along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek who wish to participate in the SLCHCP would "opt in" by signing a participation agreement provided by Lincoln County. Private landowners who opt in would be covered under the permit issued to the County. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, floodplains, wetlands, cultural and paleontological resources, soils and geological resources, ecologically critical areas, visual resources, air quality, transportation and circulation, agricultural resources, recreational resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous materials. Under the proposed action, the SLCHCP would be approved and the ITPs would be issued, authorizing incidental take of the abovementioned federally protected species on non-federal lands within the coverage area if those incidental takes were associated with land development and maintenance activities, utility and infrastructure development and maintenance activities, flood control County roadway maintenance, railroad construction and maintenance, and the conversion of an existing land use to another land use (for example, agricultural use to urban development or livestock use to agricultural use). In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would involve refusal to issue the applicants' requested ITPs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The requirements of the permits would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take for all affected species such that any taking that might occur would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species in the wild. The HCP would not unreasonably restrict Simpson's ability to continue conducting profitable timber management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Commercial, industrial, residential, and transportation developments related to the transfer of federal property from the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management into private and local government control, as well as subsequent associated developments would displace habitat for endangered and other species, degrade visual quality and other recreational values within the covered area, and increase sediment loads and water quality degradation indicators in area surface flows. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, and Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004. JF - EPA number: 080485, Draft EIS--374 pages and maps, Implementing Agreement--25 pages, November 26, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Sites KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Property Disposition KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMITS+AND+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SOUTHEASTERN+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 26, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 5 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876255385; 14471-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 4 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876255382; 14471-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 3 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876255380; 14471-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 2 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876255377; 14471-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 9 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876254415; 14471-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 8 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876254414; 14471-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 7 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876254412; 14471-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 6 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876254411; 14471-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 10 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876254348; 14471-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. [Part 1 of 10] T2 - DESIGNATION OF ENERGY CORRIDORS ON FEDERAL LAND IN 11 WESTERN STATES. AN - 876254346; 14471-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of energy corridors on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming is proposed in this programmatic EIS. Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate corridors on federal land in these 11 western states to accommodate oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution corridors. Electricity consumers in the western United States rely on an integrated network of more than 49,430 miles of transmission lines. Due to the West's unique geography and population distribution, where fuel sources and energy generation facilities are often remotely located and large population centers are spread far apart, the electricity transmission grid is typified by high-voltage transmission lines spanning long distances. The need for additional transmission infrastructure is influenced by market restructuring, new energy policies seeking renewable resources, population growth, a decade of underinvestment in new lines and technology by the utility sector, and system reliability concerns. There are more than 27,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the 11 western states. Due to market changes and environmental considerations, natural gas has played an increasingly important role as an energy source. Similarly oil will and hydrogen fuel may have a significant role in the energy source mix in the affected states. One of the chief barriers to the development of energy transport infrastructure is inconsistency in agency procedures for granting rights-of-way (ROW). Under the proposed action, the various department-level secretaries would designate Section 368 energy corridors and amendment of land use plans on federal land. More than 6,000 miles of Section 368 corridors would be designated within federal lands within the 11 western states using environmental, engineering, and land use screening criteria to reduce potential environmental and land use conflicts. More specifically, the proposed action would designate 650 miles of corridor in Arizona, 823 miles in California, 426 miles in Colorado, 314 miles in Idaho, 236 miles in Montana, 1,622 miles in Nevada, 293 miles in New Mexico, 565 miles in Oregon, 692 miles in Utah, two miles in Washington, and 18 miles in Wyoming. Each 3,500-foot-wide corridor would be designated for multimodal energy transport. Though 3,500 feet would be the standard width, energy corridor widths proposed during scoping ranged from as narrow as 60 feet to more than five miles. Special provisions have been made for species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In addition to the proposed action, this final programmatic EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the sitting and development of energy transport projects would continue under current agency procedures for the granting of ROW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By designating preferred corridors for the location of future oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electric transmission lines in a coordinated manner, the development of these facilities can be incorporated into the various land and resource management plans established by the affected agencies. Overall, 71 percent of the utility corridor length would lie within existing developed utility and transportation ROW. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The utility corridors would displace 386,567 acres in Arizona, 672,503 acres in California, 260,954 acres in Colorado, 123,108 acres in Idaho, 49,308 acres in Montana, 904,771 acres in Nevada, 121,064 acres in New Mexico, 230,593 acres in Oregon, 370,382 acres in Utah, 6,198 acres in Washington, and 185,592 acres in Wyoming. Other land uses would be either displaced or severely restricted by the construction, operation, and maintenance of utility lines within the ROW corridors. Construction of utility lines would be expected to affect wetlands, ranges, forested land, farmland, desert land, rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. The lines would also degrade visual aesthetics and impact paleontological resources and cultural resources, including cultural resources of importance to Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Energy Policy Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0437D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080482, Final EIS--741 pages, Appendices--568 pages, Maps Atlas-127 pages (oversized), Comments and Responses--184 pages, CD-ROM, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0386 KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Use KW - Land Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - New Mexico KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+ENERGY+CORRIDORS+ON+FEDERAL+LAND+IN+11+WESTERN+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Washington, District of Columbia; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. AN - 756825208; 13733-080474_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the 3,713-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren counties, Virginia is proposed. The park was established in 20002 to preserve, protect, and interpret a national significant Civil War landscape and an antebellum plantation. The Battle of Cedar Creek had a direct impact on the course of the Civil War, nearly eliminating Confederate military presence in the Shenandoah Valley. Substantial portions of the battlefield lie within the park, including historic landscapes, structure, monuments, river fords, military encampments, and avenues of approach. In addition to the 19th Century landscape, the park includes significant prehistoric resources, ecologically sensitive areas, and evidence of valley settlement and early regional European settlements. the park is a partnership park, currently with limited property in federal ownership, that works collaboratively with key partners, including Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Shenandoah County, and the Shenandoah Battlefields Foundation. These key partners provide the foundation for protecting, preserving, and interpreting park resources by virtue of their ownership of significant acreage within the park, their commitment to a shared preservation ethic, their willingness to provide visitor services and public access, and their consent to manage their property as part of the national historical park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), visitors would experience the park at a visitor center to be owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and at "visitor focal" areas to be owned and managed by the NPS and its key partners. The NPS and key partners would coordinate interpretive programs at both the visitor centers and focal areas. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes and a system of non-motorized trails that would provide opportunities for interpretation and recreation, connect focal areas, and connect to communities and resources outside the park. The NPS and its partners would develop a coordinated land protection plan focused on acquisition of key historic sites that would become visitor focal areas. The NPS and its partners would negotiate formal agreements to undertake special projects, programs, events, and specific part operations. NPS staffing would increase from three to 25 persons. One-time of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $18.0 million. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the Alternative are estimated at $2.7 million. Overall land acquisition costs attributable to both NPS and key partner proposals are estimated at $40,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving the Civil War landscape and the antebellum plantation within the park boundaries, the management plan would tell the rich story of the historic Shenandoah Valley, serve as a focal point within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and preserve the historic, natural, cultural, military, and scenic resources of the valley. The preferred Alternative would acquire significant acreage, further increasing the degree of protection afforded the cultural and natural resources within park boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D could result in moderately significant impacts to cultural and natural resources; these impacts include illegal collection of historic and archeological resources, plants, and animals within the park boundary. Increased public education and interpretation and outreach efforts would help lessen, but would not eliminate, the likelihood of this potential impact. Some soil and vegetation losses and alterations would be expected due to the construction of new facilities in the park and to increased erosion from increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 107-373 (116 Stat. 3104). JF - EPA number: 080474, 512 pages and maps, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-46 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Easements KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park KW - Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 107-373, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middletown, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. AN - 756824976; 13733-080474_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the 3,713-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren counties, Virginia is proposed. The park was established in 20002 to preserve, protect, and interpret a national significant Civil War landscape and an antebellum plantation. The Battle of Cedar Creek had a direct impact on the course of the Civil War, nearly eliminating Confederate military presence in the Shenandoah Valley. Substantial portions of the battlefield lie within the park, including historic landscapes, structure, monuments, river fords, military encampments, and avenues of approach. In addition to the 19th Century landscape, the park includes significant prehistoric resources, ecologically sensitive areas, and evidence of valley settlement and early regional European settlements. the park is a partnership park, currently with limited property in federal ownership, that works collaboratively with key partners, including Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Shenandoah County, and the Shenandoah Battlefields Foundation. These key partners provide the foundation for protecting, preserving, and interpreting park resources by virtue of their ownership of significant acreage within the park, their commitment to a shared preservation ethic, their willingness to provide visitor services and public access, and their consent to manage their property as part of the national historical park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), visitors would experience the park at a visitor center to be owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and at "visitor focal" areas to be owned and managed by the NPS and its key partners. The NPS and key partners would coordinate interpretive programs at both the visitor centers and focal areas. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes and a system of non-motorized trails that would provide opportunities for interpretation and recreation, connect focal areas, and connect to communities and resources outside the park. The NPS and its partners would develop a coordinated land protection plan focused on acquisition of key historic sites that would become visitor focal areas. The NPS and its partners would negotiate formal agreements to undertake special projects, programs, events, and specific part operations. NPS staffing would increase from three to 25 persons. One-time of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $18.0 million. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the Alternative are estimated at $2.7 million. Overall land acquisition costs attributable to both NPS and key partner proposals are estimated at $40,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving the Civil War landscape and the antebellum plantation within the park boundaries, the management plan would tell the rich story of the historic Shenandoah Valley, serve as a focal point within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and preserve the historic, natural, cultural, military, and scenic resources of the valley. The preferred Alternative would acquire significant acreage, further increasing the degree of protection afforded the cultural and natural resources within park boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D could result in moderately significant impacts to cultural and natural resources; these impacts include illegal collection of historic and archeological resources, plants, and animals within the park boundary. Increased public education and interpretation and outreach efforts would help lessen, but would not eliminate, the likelihood of this potential impact. Some soil and vegetation losses and alterations would be expected due to the construction of new facilities in the park and to increased erosion from increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 107-373 (116 Stat. 3104). JF - EPA number: 080474, 512 pages and maps, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-46 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Easements KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park KW - Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 107-373, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middletown, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. AN - 756824968; 13733-080474_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the 3,713-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren counties, Virginia is proposed. The park was established in 20002 to preserve, protect, and interpret a national significant Civil War landscape and an antebellum plantation. The Battle of Cedar Creek had a direct impact on the course of the Civil War, nearly eliminating Confederate military presence in the Shenandoah Valley. Substantial portions of the battlefield lie within the park, including historic landscapes, structure, monuments, river fords, military encampments, and avenues of approach. In addition to the 19th Century landscape, the park includes significant prehistoric resources, ecologically sensitive areas, and evidence of valley settlement and early regional European settlements. the park is a partnership park, currently with limited property in federal ownership, that works collaboratively with key partners, including Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Shenandoah County, and the Shenandoah Battlefields Foundation. These key partners provide the foundation for protecting, preserving, and interpreting park resources by virtue of their ownership of significant acreage within the park, their commitment to a shared preservation ethic, their willingness to provide visitor services and public access, and their consent to manage their property as part of the national historical park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), visitors would experience the park at a visitor center to be owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and at "visitor focal" areas to be owned and managed by the NPS and its key partners. The NPS and key partners would coordinate interpretive programs at both the visitor centers and focal areas. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes and a system of non-motorized trails that would provide opportunities for interpretation and recreation, connect focal areas, and connect to communities and resources outside the park. The NPS and its partners would develop a coordinated land protection plan focused on acquisition of key historic sites that would become visitor focal areas. The NPS and its partners would negotiate formal agreements to undertake special projects, programs, events, and specific part operations. NPS staffing would increase from three to 25 persons. One-time of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $18.0 million. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the Alternative are estimated at $2.7 million. Overall land acquisition costs attributable to both NPS and key partner proposals are estimated at $40,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving the Civil War landscape and the antebellum plantation within the park boundaries, the management plan would tell the rich story of the historic Shenandoah Valley, serve as a focal point within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and preserve the historic, natural, cultural, military, and scenic resources of the valley. The preferred Alternative would acquire significant acreage, further increasing the degree of protection afforded the cultural and natural resources within park boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D could result in moderately significant impacts to cultural and natural resources; these impacts include illegal collection of historic and archeological resources, plants, and animals within the park boundary. Increased public education and interpretation and outreach efforts would help lessen, but would not eliminate, the likelihood of this potential impact. Some soil and vegetation losses and alterations would be expected due to the construction of new facilities in the park and to increased erosion from increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 107-373 (116 Stat. 3104). JF - EPA number: 080474, 512 pages and maps, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-46 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Easements KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park KW - Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 107-373, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middletown, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CEDAR CREEK AND BELLE GROVE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, VIRGINIA. AN - 16385141; 13733 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the general management plan for the 3,713-acre Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren counties, Virginia is proposed. The park was established in 20002 to preserve, protect, and interpret a national significant Civil War landscape and an antebellum plantation. The Battle of Cedar Creek had a direct impact on the course of the Civil War, nearly eliminating Confederate military presence in the Shenandoah Valley. Substantial portions of the battlefield lie within the park, including historic landscapes, structure, monuments, river fords, military encampments, and avenues of approach. In addition to the 19th Century landscape, the park includes significant prehistoric resources, ecologically sensitive areas, and evidence of valley settlement and early regional European settlements. the park is a partnership park, currently with limited property in federal ownership, that works collaboratively with key partners, including Belle Grove, Inc., the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Shenandoah County, and the Shenandoah Battlefields Foundation. These key partners provide the foundation for protecting, preserving, and interpreting park resources by virtue of their ownership of significant acreage within the park, their commitment to a shared preservation ethic, their willingness to provide visitor services and public access, and their consent to manage their property as part of the national historical park. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), visitors would experience the park at a visitor center to be owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and at "visitor focal" areas to be owned and managed by the NPS and its key partners. The NPS and key partners would coordinate interpretive programs at both the visitor centers and focal areas. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes and a system of non-motorized trails that would provide opportunities for interpretation and recreation, connect focal areas, and connect to communities and resources outside the park. The NPS and its partners would develop a coordinated land protection plan focused on acquisition of key historic sites that would become visitor focal areas. The NPS and its partners would negotiate formal agreements to undertake special projects, programs, events, and specific part operations. NPS staffing would increase from three to 25 persons. One-time of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $18.0 million. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the Alternative are estimated at $2.7 million. Overall land acquisition costs attributable to both NPS and key partner proposals are estimated at $40,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to preserving the Civil War landscape and the antebellum plantation within the park boundaries, the management plan would tell the rich story of the historic Shenandoah Valley, serve as a focal point within the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, and preserve the historic, natural, cultural, military, and scenic resources of the valley. The preferred Alternative would acquire significant acreage, further increasing the degree of protection afforded the cultural and natural resources within park boundaries. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D could result in moderately significant impacts to cultural and natural resources; these impacts include illegal collection of historic and archeological resources, plants, and animals within the park boundary. Increased public education and interpretation and outreach efforts would help lessen, but would not eliminate, the likelihood of this potential impact. Some soil and vegetation losses and alterations would be expected due to the construction of new facilities in the park and to increased erosion from increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 107-373 (116 Stat. 3104). JF - EPA number: 080474, 512 pages and maps, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-46 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Easements KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park KW - Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 107-373, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CEDAR+CREEK+AND+BELLE+GROVE+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middletown, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 816526908; 14460-080468_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit for the development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin, 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's office in Elko, Nevada. 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 stream diversion channel, and ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres. 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. In addition to the proposal, which, with some mitigation is the BLM's preferred alternative, this draft EIS 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 was 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 whom would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,418 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat would be disturbed by mine-related facilities, including 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Approximately 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and throughout reclamation activities. A 0.15-acre wetland and 0.88 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. would be displaced. Approximately 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel would be removed, eliminating 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. A total of 43 cultural resource sites lie within the area of potential effect. Of these, three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted during the 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 eet 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: 080468, 332 pages and maps, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-GI-09/02+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/816526908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 754908268; 14460 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of permit for the development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin, 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's office in Elko, Nevada. 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 stream diversion channel, and ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres. 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. In addition to the proposal, which, with some mitigation is the BLM's preferred alternative, this draft EIS 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 was 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 whom would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,418 acres of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat would be disturbed by mine-related facilities, including 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Approximately 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and throughout reclamation activities. A 0.15-acre wetland and 0.88 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. would be displaced. Approximately 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel would be removed, eliminating 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. A total of 43 cultural resource sites lie within the area of potential effect. Of these, three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted during the 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 eet 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: 080468, 332 pages and maps, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES-GI-09/02+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/754908268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 26 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827502; 14455-080497_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 6 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827501; 14455-080497_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 25 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827476; 14455-080497_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 24 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827473; 14455-080497_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 21 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827470; 14455-080497_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 14 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827465; 14455-080497_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 13 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827462; 14455-080497_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 22 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827394; 14455-080497_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 19 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827387; 14455-080497_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 17 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827373; 14455-080497_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 9 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827365; 14455-080497_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 7 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827359; 14455-080497_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 18 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827346; 14455-080497_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 20 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827343; 14455-080497_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827339; 14455-080497_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827336; 14455-080497_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827322; 14455-080497_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 10 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827298; 14455-080497_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 23 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827288; 14455-080497_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827284; 14455-080497_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827278; 14455-080497_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 16 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827268; 14455-080497_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 15 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827259; 14455-080497_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 12 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827247; 14455-080497_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 11 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827236; 14455-080497_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 8 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827221; 14455-080497_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 27 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827207; 14455-080497_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 754908512; 14455 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/754908512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825273; 13729-080463_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825094; 13729-080463_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 756825052; 13729-080463_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEPORT AMERICA COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SITE, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 15227226; 13729 AB - PURPOSE: The development and operation of a facility, to be known as Spaceport America, in Sierra County, New Mexico, are proposed to allow private companies to launch suborbital commercial space vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would issue a launch site operator license to the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to operate a launch site capable of accommodating both horizontal and vertical launch vehicles. The FAA and would separately license the users who propose to conduct launch operations at the site and would register the objects to be launched into space. The proposed site, which would have a boundary perimeter of 26 miles enclosing both state and private lands, is located near Upham, 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 45 miles north of Las Cruces. Permitted space vehicles would include those carrying space flight participants, scientific experiments, or other payloads. Horizontal launch vehicles. Rocket-powered horizontal launch vehicles would launch and land at the proposed Spaceport airfield. Vertical launch vehicles would launch from and either land at Spaceport America or within the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). Rocket-powered vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad. Vertical launch vehicles with components designed to return to Earth by parachute would have flight profiles such that these components (i.e., main rocket stages, payload sections, and crew/passenger modules) would land at WSMR. Landings at WSMR would be coordinated and approved in advance by WSMR authorities. In addition, the proposed action would provide for the construction of facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the Spaceport. Key issues considered to provide a context for understanding and assessing potential environmental impacts of development and operation of the site include recreational resources, farmlands, noise, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, water quality, wetland values, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, fish, wildlife, vegetation, hazardous materials, waste management, socioeconomic conditions, safety risks, and energy supplies and other natural resources. Major components of the site would include a central control facility for administration and mission planning; an airfield capable of handling large cargo aircraft, commercial aircraft, space vehicles that land horizontally, winged reentry vehicles, and helicopters; a maintenance facility for payload processing and vehicle repair; three launch and landing pads; a flight control center; and a cryogenic fuel plant for manufacturing and storing the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and the issuance of an operator license allowing only horizontal or only vertical launches. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would support a number of scientific and industrial missions that are outside the scope of the U.S. space program and would enhance high technology economic development and educational opportunities in southern New Mexico. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with the development of Spaceport America would disturb 970 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The footprint of the final facilities would cover 145 acres. Operational activities that could result in environmental impacts would include transport of launch vehicles to assembly or staging areas, transport and storage of rocket propellants and other fuels, ground-based tests and static firings, training, and launch, landing and recovery activities for launch vehicles. Substantial areas of land would be removed from permitted livestock grazing uses. Historic properties within the site would be degraded or destroyed. Facilities at the Spaceport would degrade the visual quality of the area, which is characterized by solitude and pristine landscapes. Vertical launches would generate the highest noise levels, but horizontal launches and other airfield operations would also emit significant levels of noise. Sonic boom noise would affect downrange areas, but would be unlikely to cause physical damage or result in significant public complaints. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-575) and Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0366D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080463, 1,184 pages, November 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aerospace KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Helicopters KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Sonic Booms KW - Spacecraft KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Supply KW - New Mexico KW - Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Project Authorization KW - Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2000, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SPACEPORT+AMERICA+COMMERCIAL+LAUNCH+SITE%2C+SIERRA+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827503; 14418-080454_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827496; 14418-080454_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827439; 14418-080454_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827435; 14418-080454_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827426; 14418-080454_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827369; 14418-080454_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827363; 14418-080454_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 756827338; 14418-080454_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLACK MESA PROJECT, MOJAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 754904644; 14418 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plans for the Kayenta and Black Mesa surface coal mining operations at the Black Mesa Complex by Peabody Western Coal Company and associated actions are proposed. The associated actions would include approval of a coal-slurry preparation plant permit application, the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generation Station in Laughlin, Nevada, and the granting of rights-of-way, leases, and/or permits for the construction of a water supply system and associated facilities to convey water from a well field in the Coconino aquifer near Leupp, Arizona for use at the Black Mesa Complex. The Kayenta mining operation has provided coal to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona since 1973, and from 1970 to December 2005, the Black Mesa operation provided coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Currently, Peabody is authorized to mine at the Kayenta mining operation through 2026 and to mine at the Black Mesa operation until such time that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement makes a decision on the LOM permit that Peabody has submitted to the Office. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A, the Alternative forwarded by the applicant, would involve the approval of the LOM revision and all associated components. Under Alternative, Peabody would incorporate into the permanent LOM permit currently unpermitted parts of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation lease areas and 2) obtain new rights-of-way and easements. The revisions would include, but not be limited to, construction of a coal-washing facility, an increase in coal production from the Black Mesa operation, and increased need for water for slurry and coal washing. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. would reconstruct the 273-mile coal-delivery slurry pipeline from the Black Mesa operation to the Mohave Generating Station; the pipeline has which has reached the end of its 35-year design life. Salt River Project, operated by Southern California Edison Company, would construct and operate a new water supply system, including a well field near Leupp and a 108-mile water supply pipeline to convey water from the Coconino aquifer to the Black Mesa Complex for use in coal slurry transport and other mining purposes; this water would be used to replace much of that water that has been taken from the Navajo aquifer for mining and coal transportation purposes. Alternative B, the newly preferred Alternative, would involve conditional approval of the Kayenta mining operation part of the LOM revision and disapproval of the Black Mesa mining operation of the LOM revision. Alternative C would result in the disapproval of the entire LOM revision. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the LOM program and associated permits and rights-of-way would allow Peabody to continue supplying coal to the two power plants receiving slurry from the mine complex via pipeline, thereby continuing the ability of the plants to supply electric power to regional industrial, municipal, commercial, and residential consumers. Annual mining royalties paid to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe would amount to $37.9 million and $15.5 million, respectively. Arizona would receive $18.1 million in sales taxes annually. Expansion of the mining complex would increase mining employment rolls by 80 jobs. Road improvements related to the project would improve regional access for the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The upper 250 feet of surface material would be removed from more than 13,529 acres at the mine complex site. This would result in the loss of 8,500 acres of pinon/juniper woodland vegetation and 4,200 acres of sagebrush and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction of the slurry pipeline would disturb 2,100 acres, and the pipeline route would traverse 23 cultural resource sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 70 residences would be affected by pipeline construction due to access limitations or property losses. Installation of aquifer facilities would affect 55 residences and grazing operations. Drawdown of the aquifer due to withdrawals would affect surface water flows and wells. Aquifer drawdowns could affect the federally protected salt cedar and the Little Colorado spinedace, which would reduce the areas value as a grazing resource. Following mining, the topsoil would be replaced and vegetation restored. Site topography would change significantly following mining, and the visual aesthetic of the mining area an pipeline Corridor would be severely degraded during mining and significantly altered after reclamation. Grazing activities would be eliminated until reclamation has been completed in mined areas. Mining would degrade and, in some areas, destroy aquifer resources, including numerous springs. Soil chemistry would be degraded. The LOM would require the displacement of 17 Navajo households. Final closure of the Black Mesa Complex would result in severe unemployment and other economic losses in the Kayenta area. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1342), 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0017D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080454, Final EIS--998 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--688 pages, October 31, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Easements KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Indian Reservations KW - Industrial Water KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soil Pollution KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Nevada KW - Clean Air Act of 1970, Prevention of Significant Deterioration KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=BLACK+MESA+PROJECT%2C+MOJAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131811; 14410-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Mountain View Power Partners, LLC for the construction and operation of the Mountain View IV Wind Energy Project on federal and Palms Springs jurisdictional lands within the western end of Coachella Valley, in Palm Springs, California. The wind energy facilities would lie west of North Indian Canyon Drive and south of Interstate 10. More specifically, the subject properties are located within sections 27 and 28 of Township 3 South, Range 4 East. The project site consists of vacant desert lands and a large berm in Section 27, and the remnants of a non-operational wind generation facility and associated gravel roads in Section 28. Section 27 is public land administered by the BLM, whole Section 28 is owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Both parcels would be developed as a comprehensively planned project. From 21 to 24 wind turbines, rated at 850 to 1,500 kilowatts, would be developed on the BLM rights-of-way. These turbines would provide 20.4 to 21 megawatts (MW) of rated capacity. The CVWD portion of the project, which would be subject to a conditional use permit through the City of Palm Springs, would include 28 to 34 turbines in Section 27, providing for up to 28 MW of rated capacity. The project would include existing 16-foot-wide gravel roads extending a total of 17,200 linear feet and new 16-foot-wide gravel roads extending a total of 16,065 feet. Each graveled turbine site would be 63 feet by 47 feet, with gravel depths of four to six feet. The project plan would include a 5,450-foot extension of an existing overhead power line within BLM land in Section 22 and the construction of a 34.5-kilovolt to 115-kilovolt electrical substation on BLM land just north of the Union Pacific Railroad line in Section 22. In a addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Reduced Development Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The wind turbine facility would allow the applicant to take advantage of a 20- to 25-year power purchase contract with a major electric utility to supply 100 percent wind-generated electrical energy, helping to meet the increased demand for renewable energy in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soil and vegetation displacement would affect wildlife and plant habitat, including habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Coachella Valley milkvetch, flat-tail horned lizard, borrowing owl, silver cholla, and desert willow hummocks. The wind farm would lie within an area affected by strong seismic activity. Construction of the facilities would result in significant runoff in a desert area where runoff is rare; significant degradation of water quality in surface flows would occur. The facilities would lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Whitewater River. A maximum of 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,400 cubic yards of fill would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0042D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080446, Draft EIS--179 pages, Final EIS--187 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 08-57 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Turbines KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+IV+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+IV+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. AN - 756827492; 14408-080444_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) of Hawaii is proposed. The NHT was added to the National Trails System on November 13, 2000. The legislation authorizing the Ala Kahakai NHT identifies an approximately 175-mile portion of prehistoric "ala loa" (long trail) and other trails on or parallel to the seacoast extending from Upolu Point on the north tip of Hawaii Island down the west coast of the island around South Point to the east boundary of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The Ala Kahakai NHT combines surviving elements of the ancient "ala loa" with segments of later "alanui aupuni", which were developed on or parallel to the traditional routes, as well as more recent pathways and roads that created links between the historic segments. Federal ownership of the NHT is limited to the trail alignment within the four national parks it links: Pu'ukohola National Historic Site, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP), Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Key planning issues identified during scoping include those related to trail administration and operations, changes to the historic setting of the trail, th3 vulnerability of cultural and natural features to human and natural encroachment and damage, protection of Native Hawaiian cultural and spiritual values, concerns over trespassing and the cost of trail maintenance and protection by landowners, and undesirable trail user behavior. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes a copy of the draft EIS, errata for the draft, and comments on the draft and responses thereto. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would maintain the NHT as a continuous linear trail, while recognizing the existence and importance of multiple trail alignments in traditional land use and stewardship in Hawaii by using the authority of the National Trails System Act of 1968 for connecting and side trails. All parallel ancient and historic trails lateral to the shoreline within the Ala Kahakai NHT Corridor on public land would be recognized as significant rather than recognizing only a single trail. These alignments would include inland portions of the "ala loa" and other historic trails that run parallel to the shoreline and would be connected to ancient historic "mauka-makai" (mountain to sea) trails that traditionally would have been part of the "ahupua'a" system. Including "mauka-makai" trails could provide opportunities for loop trail experiences. These multiple trail alignments would occur only on public lands, including federal and state-owned lands, unless a private owner expressed an interest in recognizing more than a single linear Ala Kahakai NHT. Canoe landings that reflect the traditional uses of canoes in long-distance travel would be established where feasible. Day hiking and overnight camping would be supported via signs and markers and the development of trailheads and primitive campsites. Prehistoric and historic archaeological and traditional sites and their surrounding habitat would be preserved and interpreted. First cost of implementing the preferred Alternative over a 15-year period is estimated to range from $3.2 million to $5.0 million, of which the federal government would fund $1.3 million to $2.5 million. Annual operating costs are estimated to range from $702,000 to 887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management Alternative would reflect the public's vision, developed during the review of the alterative, for the administration and management of the trail. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits, limited trail construction activities, and facility development associated with the provision of trailheads would result in the destruction of vegetation and the disturbance of soil and the associated wildlife habitat and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the immediate area of the resulting facilities. Increased visitor use of the trail could result in significant soil compaction along portions of the trail that are not surfaced by lava or sand, which are the chief trail surface constituents. LEGAL MANDATES: Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Trail System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0463D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080444, Final EIS--88, Draft EIS--342 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park KW - Pu'ukohola National Historic Site KW - Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, Program Authorization KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Trail System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. AN - 756827489; 14412-080448_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly fire suppression level as occurred from 1993 and 2005 through the life of the proposed new plan. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 2,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this Alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. In general, forest health and resilience would be improved; age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080448, Draft EIS--677 pages, Appendices--204 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-40 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 756827481; 14407-080443_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred Alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seam per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. This final supplement to the final EIS responds to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development Alternative for CBNG production. The final supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS and also provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Eight alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed. A newly preferred Alternative is selected from amongst alternatives, which include a No Action Alternative, considered in the final supplement. The newly preferred Alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this Alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. The air quality analysis presented in this supplement to the draft supplement outlines the potential for air quality degradation, including degradation related to scenic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. With respect to the air quality impacts covered in the document at hand, CBNG project activities would be likely to have an impact on air quality, particularly with respect to visibility, within certain high-quality scenic areas, including the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0034D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080443, Volume I (Part 1)--271 pages, Volume I (Part 2)--310 pages, Volume II (Part 1)--266 pages, Volume II (Part 2)--251 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-08/016 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Coal Gasification KW - Drilling KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana KW - Powder River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. AN - 756827472; 14412-080448_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly fire suppression level as occurred from 1993 and 2005 through the life of the proposed new plan. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 2,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this Alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. In general, forest health and resilience would be improved; age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080448, Draft EIS--677 pages, Appendices--204 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-40 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 756827417; 14407-080443_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred Alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seam per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. This final supplement to the final EIS responds to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development Alternative for CBNG production. The final supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS and also provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Eight alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed. A newly preferred Alternative is selected from amongst alternatives, which include a No Action Alternative, considered in the final supplement. The newly preferred Alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this Alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. The air quality analysis presented in this supplement to the draft supplement outlines the potential for air quality degradation, including degradation related to scenic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. With respect to the air quality impacts covered in the document at hand, CBNG project activities would be likely to have an impact on air quality, particularly with respect to visibility, within certain high-quality scenic areas, including the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0034D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080443, Volume I (Part 1)--271 pages, Volume I (Part 2)--310 pages, Volume II (Part 1)--266 pages, Volume II (Part 2)--251 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-08/016 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Coal Gasification KW - Drilling KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana KW - Powder River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 756827381; 14407-080443_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred Alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seam per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. This final supplement to the final EIS responds to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development Alternative for CBNG production. The final supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS and also provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Eight alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed. A newly preferred Alternative is selected from amongst alternatives, which include a No Action Alternative, considered in the final supplement. The newly preferred Alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this Alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. The air quality analysis presented in this supplement to the draft supplement outlines the potential for air quality degradation, including degradation related to scenic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. With respect to the air quality impacts covered in the document at hand, CBNG project activities would be likely to have an impact on air quality, particularly with respect to visibility, within certain high-quality scenic areas, including the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0034D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080443, Volume I (Part 1)--271 pages, Volume I (Part 2)--310 pages, Volume II (Part 1)--266 pages, Volume II (Part 2)--251 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-08/016 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Coal Gasification KW - Drilling KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana KW - Powder River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. AN - 756827376; 14408-080444_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) of Hawaii is proposed. The NHT was added to the National Trails System on November 13, 2000. The legislation authorizing the Ala Kahakai NHT identifies an approximately 175-mile portion of prehistoric "ala loa" (long trail) and other trails on or parallel to the seacoast extending from Upolu Point on the north tip of Hawaii Island down the west coast of the island around South Point to the east boundary of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The Ala Kahakai NHT combines surviving elements of the ancient "ala loa" with segments of later "alanui aupuni", which were developed on or parallel to the traditional routes, as well as more recent pathways and roads that created links between the historic segments. Federal ownership of the NHT is limited to the trail alignment within the four national parks it links: Pu'ukohola National Historic Site, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP), Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Key planning issues identified during scoping include those related to trail administration and operations, changes to the historic setting of the trail, th3 vulnerability of cultural and natural features to human and natural encroachment and damage, protection of Native Hawaiian cultural and spiritual values, concerns over trespassing and the cost of trail maintenance and protection by landowners, and undesirable trail user behavior. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes a copy of the draft EIS, errata for the draft, and comments on the draft and responses thereto. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would maintain the NHT as a continuous linear trail, while recognizing the existence and importance of multiple trail alignments in traditional land use and stewardship in Hawaii by using the authority of the National Trails System Act of 1968 for connecting and side trails. All parallel ancient and historic trails lateral to the shoreline within the Ala Kahakai NHT Corridor on public land would be recognized as significant rather than recognizing only a single trail. These alignments would include inland portions of the "ala loa" and other historic trails that run parallel to the shoreline and would be connected to ancient historic "mauka-makai" (mountain to sea) trails that traditionally would have been part of the "ahupua'a" system. Including "mauka-makai" trails could provide opportunities for loop trail experiences. These multiple trail alignments would occur only on public lands, including federal and state-owned lands, unless a private owner expressed an interest in recognizing more than a single linear Ala Kahakai NHT. Canoe landings that reflect the traditional uses of canoes in long-distance travel would be established where feasible. Day hiking and overnight camping would be supported via signs and markers and the development of trailheads and primitive campsites. Prehistoric and historic archaeological and traditional sites and their surrounding habitat would be preserved and interpreted. First cost of implementing the preferred Alternative over a 15-year period is estimated to range from $3.2 million to $5.0 million, of which the federal government would fund $1.3 million to $2.5 million. Annual operating costs are estimated to range from $702,000 to 887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management Alternative would reflect the public's vision, developed during the review of the alterative, for the administration and management of the trail. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits, limited trail construction activities, and facility development associated with the provision of trailheads would result in the destruction of vegetation and the disturbance of soil and the associated wildlife habitat and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the immediate area of the resulting facilities. Increased visitor use of the trail could result in significant soil compaction along portions of the trail that are not surfaced by lava or sand, which are the chief trail surface constituents. LEGAL MANDATES: Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Trail System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0463D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080444, Final EIS--88, Draft EIS--342 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park KW - Pu'ukohola National Historic Site KW - Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, Program Authorization KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Trail System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 756827333; 14407-080443_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred Alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seam per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. This final supplement to the final EIS responds to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development Alternative for CBNG production. The final supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS and also provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Eight alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed. A newly preferred Alternative is selected from amongst alternatives, which include a No Action Alternative, considered in the final supplement. The newly preferred Alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this Alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. The air quality analysis presented in this supplement to the draft supplement outlines the potential for air quality degradation, including degradation related to scenic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. With respect to the air quality impacts covered in the document at hand, CBNG project activities would be likely to have an impact on air quality, particularly with respect to visibility, within certain high-quality scenic areas, including the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0034D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080443, Volume I (Part 1)--271 pages, Volume I (Part 2)--310 pages, Volume II (Part 1)--266 pages, Volume II (Part 2)--251 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-08/016 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Coal Gasification KW - Drilling KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana KW - Powder River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. AN - 756827332; 14412-080448_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly fire suppression level as occurred from 1993 and 2005 through the life of the proposed new plan. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 2,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this Alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. In general, forest health and resilience would be improved; age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080448, Draft EIS--677 pages, Appendices--204 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-40 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. AN - 756827299; 14408-080444_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) of Hawaii is proposed. The NHT was added to the National Trails System on November 13, 2000. The legislation authorizing the Ala Kahakai NHT identifies an approximately 175-mile portion of prehistoric "ala loa" (long trail) and other trails on or parallel to the seacoast extending from Upolu Point on the north tip of Hawaii Island down the west coast of the island around South Point to the east boundary of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The Ala Kahakai NHT combines surviving elements of the ancient "ala loa" with segments of later "alanui aupuni", which were developed on or parallel to the traditional routes, as well as more recent pathways and roads that created links between the historic segments. Federal ownership of the NHT is limited to the trail alignment within the four national parks it links: Pu'ukohola National Historic Site, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP), Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Key planning issues identified during scoping include those related to trail administration and operations, changes to the historic setting of the trail, th3 vulnerability of cultural and natural features to human and natural encroachment and damage, protection of Native Hawaiian cultural and spiritual values, concerns over trespassing and the cost of trail maintenance and protection by landowners, and undesirable trail user behavior. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes a copy of the draft EIS, errata for the draft, and comments on the draft and responses thereto. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would maintain the NHT as a continuous linear trail, while recognizing the existence and importance of multiple trail alignments in traditional land use and stewardship in Hawaii by using the authority of the National Trails System Act of 1968 for connecting and side trails. All parallel ancient and historic trails lateral to the shoreline within the Ala Kahakai NHT Corridor on public land would be recognized as significant rather than recognizing only a single trail. These alignments would include inland portions of the "ala loa" and other historic trails that run parallel to the shoreline and would be connected to ancient historic "mauka-makai" (mountain to sea) trails that traditionally would have been part of the "ahupua'a" system. Including "mauka-makai" trails could provide opportunities for loop trail experiences. These multiple trail alignments would occur only on public lands, including federal and state-owned lands, unless a private owner expressed an interest in recognizing more than a single linear Ala Kahakai NHT. Canoe landings that reflect the traditional uses of canoes in long-distance travel would be established where feasible. Day hiking and overnight camping would be supported via signs and markers and the development of trailheads and primitive campsites. Prehistoric and historic archaeological and traditional sites and their surrounding habitat would be preserved and interpreted. First cost of implementing the preferred Alternative over a 15-year period is estimated to range from $3.2 million to $5.0 million, of which the federal government would fund $1.3 million to $2.5 million. Annual operating costs are estimated to range from $702,000 to 887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management Alternative would reflect the public's vision, developed during the review of the alterative, for the administration and management of the trail. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits, limited trail construction activities, and facility development associated with the provision of trailheads would result in the destruction of vegetation and the disturbance of soil and the associated wildlife habitat and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the immediate area of the resulting facilities. Increased visitor use of the trail could result in significant soil compaction along portions of the trail that are not surfaced by lava or sand, which are the chief trail surface constituents. LEGAL MANDATES: Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Trail System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0463D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080444, Final EIS--88, Draft EIS--342 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park KW - Pu'ukohola National Historic Site KW - Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, Program Authorization KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Trail System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ARIZONA. AN - 754905305; 14412 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a new fire management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. Between 1993 and 2006, more than 115,800 acres burned within the park. Of this total, 46,459 acres burned due to prescribed fire, 46,433 due to naturally-ignited fires having desirable outcomes, and 22,942 acres burned due to unwanted fires. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. The current management plan employs fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and limited manual fuel reduction treatments in three existing fire management units (FMUs). The preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) would establish a mixed fire treatment program resembling the current management regime, but using newly defined FMUs and including fire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire and non-fire treatments, along with the additional options of mechanical and manual hazardous fuel treatment techniques. Alternative 2 would assume a similar or slightly fire suppression level as occurred from 1993 and 2005 through the life of the proposed new plan. Prescribed fire would continue under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average of 5,840 acres being treated annually. Annual acreage managed as wildland fire use would increase as natural fire regimes were restored, though prediction of the exact extent of wildfire use is difficult. The average annual extent of wildfire use could rise from the current 2,568 acres to an annual average of 5,000 acres. Acreage treated with prescribed fire could decrease under this Alternative as acres treated using other wildland fire strategies increased, obviating the need for prescribed fire in these areas. Mechanical and manual fuel reduction treatments at the wildland-urban interface (WUI) would also occur under a long-term treatment schedule, resulting in an average annual treatment of 225 acres. Alternative 3 would emphasize treatments that do not involve fire. Alterative 4 would emphasize prescribed fire. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing WUI acreage treated would reduce the risk of wildland fires endangering human life and private property. The expected shift from the use of prescribed fire to wildland fire use to control fuels would help return the area to a natural fire regime. In general, forest health and resilience would be improved; age class and species stand distribution would support a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. A research component associated with the fire management plan would promote a more thorough understanding of natural fire regimes within the Grand Canyon and other, similar ecosystems. Wildlife dependent on early successional stages would benefit more than others. Wilderness values would be preserved or enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As the prescribed fire component moved into more complex burn units (such as mixed conifer areas with high fuel loads and ladder fuels), risks associated with this technique would increase. Fire and mechanical treatments of any sort would destroy vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturb soils, and increase sediment levels in streams over the short-term. Vegetation destroyed by management treatments would include special status plant species. Wildlife dependent on closed canopy forests in late successional stages would be particularly impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080448, Draft EIS--677 pages, Appendices--204 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 08-40 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - National Parks KW - Research KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Arizona KW - Grand Canyon National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754905305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=GRAND+CANYON+NATIONAL+PARK+FIRE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754904716; 14410 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Mountain View Power Partners, LLC for the construction and operation of the Mountain View IV Wind Energy Project on federal and Palms Springs jurisdictional lands within the western end of Coachella Valley, in Palm Springs, California. The wind energy facilities would lie west of North Indian Canyon Drive and south of Interstate 10. More specifically, the subject properties are located within sections 27 and 28 of Township 3 South, Range 4 East. The project site consists of vacant desert lands and a large berm in Section 27, and the remnants of a non-operational wind generation facility and associated gravel roads in Section 28. Section 27 is public land administered by the BLM, whole Section 28 is owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Both parcels would be developed as a comprehensively planned project. From 21 to 24 wind turbines, rated at 850 to 1,500 kilowatts, would be developed on the BLM rights-of-way. These turbines would provide 20.4 to 21 megawatts (MW) of rated capacity. The CVWD portion of the project, which would be subject to a conditional use permit through the City of Palm Springs, would include 28 to 34 turbines in Section 27, providing for up to 28 MW of rated capacity. The project would include existing 16-foot-wide gravel roads extending a total of 17,200 linear feet and new 16-foot-wide gravel roads extending a total of 16,065 feet. Each graveled turbine site would be 63 feet by 47 feet, with gravel depths of four to six feet. The project plan would include a 5,450-foot extension of an existing overhead power line within BLM land in Section 22 and the construction of a 34.5-kilovolt to 115-kilovolt electrical substation on BLM land just north of the Union Pacific Railroad line in Section 22. In a addition to the proposed project, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Reduced Development Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The wind turbine facility would allow the applicant to take advantage of a 20- to 25-year power purchase contract with a major electric utility to supply 100 percent wind-generated electrical energy, helping to meet the increased demand for renewable energy in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Soil and vegetation displacement would affect wildlife and plant habitat, including habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Coachella Valley milkvetch, flat-tail horned lizard, borrowing owl, silver cholla, and desert willow hummocks. The wind farm would lie within an area affected by strong seismic activity. Construction of the facilities would result in significant runoff in a desert area where runoff is rare; significant degradation of water quality in surface flows would occur. The facilities would lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Whitewater River. A maximum of 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,400 cubic yards of fill would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0042D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080446, Draft EIS--179 pages, Final EIS--187 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 08-57 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Turbines KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+IV+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+IV+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+PALM+SPRINGS%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALA KAHAKAI NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, HAWAII. AN - 754904630; 14408 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a comprehensive management plan for the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) of Hawaii is proposed. The NHT was added to the National Trails System on November 13, 2000. The legislation authorizing the Ala Kahakai NHT identifies an approximately 175-mile portion of prehistoric "ala loa" (long trail) and other trails on or parallel to the seacoast extending from Upolu Point on the north tip of Hawaii Island down the west coast of the island around South Point to the east boundary of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The Ala Kahakai NHT combines surviving elements of the ancient "ala loa" with segments of later "alanui aupuni", which were developed on or parallel to the traditional routes, as well as more recent pathways and roads that created links between the historic segments. Federal ownership of the NHT is limited to the trail alignment within the four national parks it links: Pu'ukohola National Historic Site, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP), Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Key planning issues identified during scoping include those related to trail administration and operations, changes to the historic setting of the trail, th3 vulnerability of cultural and natural features to human and natural encroachment and damage, protection of Native Hawaiian cultural and spiritual values, concerns over trespassing and the cost of trail maintenance and protection by landowners, and undesirable trail user behavior. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which includes a copy of the draft EIS, errata for the draft, and comments on the draft and responses thereto. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would maintain the NHT as a continuous linear trail, while recognizing the existence and importance of multiple trail alignments in traditional land use and stewardship in Hawaii by using the authority of the National Trails System Act of 1968 for connecting and side trails. All parallel ancient and historic trails lateral to the shoreline within the Ala Kahakai NHT Corridor on public land would be recognized as significant rather than recognizing only a single trail. These alignments would include inland portions of the "ala loa" and other historic trails that run parallel to the shoreline and would be connected to ancient historic "mauka-makai" (mountain to sea) trails that traditionally would have been part of the "ahupua'a" system. Including "mauka-makai" trails could provide opportunities for loop trail experiences. These multiple trail alignments would occur only on public lands, including federal and state-owned lands, unless a private owner expressed an interest in recognizing more than a single linear Ala Kahakai NHT. Canoe landings that reflect the traditional uses of canoes in long-distance travel would be established where feasible. Day hiking and overnight camping would be supported via signs and markers and the development of trailheads and primitive campsites. Prehistoric and historic archaeological and traditional sites and their surrounding habitat would be preserved and interpreted. First cost of implementing the preferred Alternative over a 15-year period is estimated to range from $3.2 million to $5.0 million, of which the federal government would fund $1.3 million to $2.5 million. Annual operating costs are estimated to range from $702,000 to 887,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management Alternative would reflect the public's vision, developed during the review of the alterative, for the administration and management of the trail. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Installation of route markers and interpretive exhibits, limited trail construction activities, and facility development associated with the provision of trailheads would result in the destruction of vegetation and the disturbance of soil and the associated wildlife habitat and the degradation of visual aesthetics in the immediate area of the resulting facilities. Increased visitor use of the trail could result in significant soil compaction along portions of the trail that are not surfaced by lava or sand, which are the chief trail surface constituents. LEGAL MANDATES: Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and National Trail System Act of 1968 (P.L. 80-543). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0463D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080444, Final EIS--88, Draft EIS--342 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park KW - Pu'ukohola National Historic Site KW - Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park KW - Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Act of 2000, Program Authorization KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Trail System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=ALA+KAHAKAI+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+TRAIL%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Kaliua-Kona, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANA STATEWIDE FINAL OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 754904613; 14407 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the management of federal and state coalbed natural gas (CBNG) administered by the Miles City and Billings field offices of the Bureau of Land Management and the state of Montana are proposed. The plan would address resource management in the Powder River Resource Management Plan (RMP) Area, including Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer, and Rosebud counties, and the Billings RMP Area, including Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. The combined planning area encompasses 1.5 million acres of federally managed surface and 5.0 million acres of federal mineral estate. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the final EIS of January 2003. The preferred Alternative (Alternative E) would allow for CBNG exploration and development on federal, state, and/or fee mineral resource areas subject to agency decisions, lease stipulations, permit requirements, and surface owner agreements. Operators would be required to submit a project plan outlining the proposed development of an area when requesting CBNG well densities greater than one well per 640 acres. All shallow coal seams would have vertical wells installed. For deeper coal seams, the operator would drill directionally or demonstrate in the project plan why directional drilling was not necessary or feasible. Operators would develop single or multiple coal seams per their plans; however, there would be only one well bore per coal seam per designated spacing restriction. Operators would be required to demonstrate in their project plan how impacts to surface resources would be minimized or mitigated. Stipulations regarding release of water during dewatering and release of air pollutants from equipment would also be incorporated into the plans. All mining areas would be reclaimed. This final supplement to the final EIS responds to a decision of the U.S. District Court requiring the Bureau of Land Management evaluate a phased development Alternative for CBNG production. The final supplement constitutes a reissue of the original final EIS and also provides additional information and analysis regarding topics identified by the U.S. District Court. Eight alternatives for managing oil and gas resources in the planning area are analyzed. A newly preferred Alternative is selected from amongst alternatives, which include a No Action Alternative, considered in the final supplement. The newly preferred Alternative (Alternative H) has three key components. First, a phased development approach would be implemented by which CBNG proposals would be reviewed against four filters or screens to determine whether the proposal needed modification. The review screens would be applied to water resources, wildlife habitat, Native American concerns, and air quality. Secondly, this Alternative would include extensive requirements that an operator would be required to meet when submitting a plan of development (POD). Thirdly, mitigation measures would be considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate. The air quality analysis presented in this supplement to the draft supplement outlines the potential for air quality degradation, including degradation related to scenic resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CBNG produced in the area would provide a substantial energy resource, reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and natural gas. Exploration and production activities would employ local workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economies in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development facilities would displace wildlife habitat and farmland and could affect cultural resources. Discharges of sodium could damage soil and degrade water quality in surface and groundwater flows. Compressors and other equipment would generate air pollutants and noise. Transmission lines associated with resource development would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Monitoring wells would be required on land that abuts a Native American reservation. Well development could result in drawdown of the local aquifer. With respect to the air quality impacts covered in the document at hand, CBNG project activities would be likely to have an impact on air quality, particularly with respect to visibility, within certain high-quality scenic areas, including the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0034D, Volume 31, Number 1. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 02-0129D, Volume 26, Number 2 and 03-0144F, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080443, Volume I (Part 1)--271 pages, Volume I (Part 2)--310 pages, Volume II (Part 1)--266 pages, Volume II (Part 2)--251 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-08/016 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Coal Gasification KW - Drilling KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Natural Gas KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana KW - Powder River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=MONTANA+STATEWIDE+FINAL+OIL+AND+GAS+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+AND+AMENDMENT+OF+THE+POWDER+RIVER+AND+BILLINGS+RESOURCES+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO (SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT). AN - 16386594; 13523 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. This supplemental information report provides additional information on the proposal forwarded in the draft EIS of February 2008. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment pant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. This supplemental report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative And the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080072, 151 pages, October 30, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 08-11 KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386594?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+INFORMATION+REPORT%29.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO+%28SUPPLEMENTAL+INFORMATION+REPORT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 30, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. AN - 756827490; 14401-080437_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1853 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alterative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach at both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred Alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New Facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp would be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the redoubt off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be returned to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 89-565. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0058D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080437, 336 pages and maps, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Washington KW - San Juan Island National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 89-565, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. AN - 756827487; 14401-080437_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1853 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alterative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach at both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred Alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New Facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp would be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the redoubt off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be returned to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 89-565. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0058D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080437, 336 pages and maps, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Washington KW - San Juan Island National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 89-565, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. AN - 756827428; 14401-080437_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1853 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alterative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach at both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred Alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New Facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp would be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the redoubt off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be returned to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 89-565. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0058D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080437, 336 pages and maps, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Washington KW - San Juan Island National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 89-565, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, PUERTO RICO. AN - 756827309; 14401-080437_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan for San Juan Island National Historical Park in Puerto Rico is proposed. The island is the second largest island of the San Juan archipelago, which is situated in northwestern Washington between the southern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia and the United States mainland. The historical park, which was established by Congress in 1966, commemorates and preserves the 1,223-acre American Camp and the 1,752-acre English Camp. The boundary of the English Camp includes an offshore island known as Guss Island. The camps were connected to activities in the period between 1853 and 1871 on the island in connection with the final settlement of the Oregon Territory boundary dispute between the British and American governments. The marine ecosystems surrounding these units and their six miles of publicly accessible shoreline are renowned for their scenery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) The general concept for Alterative B would result in increased visitor use opportunities and outreach at both English Camp and American Camp and in the town of Friday Harbor through additional visitor facilities, recreational opportunities, programs, and services, Interpretation would be enhanced for both cultural and natural interpretive themes through more extensive facilities and programs. Alternative C, the preferred Alternative, would broaden the scope of resource management and interpretation programs to emphasize the connections and interrelationships between the park's natural and cultural resources. New Facilities, trails, and programs would provide opportunities for visitors to understand the importance of the park's natural resources in defining the cultural landscapes and influencing the settlement and historic events of San Juan Island. At English Camp, the Crook House would be retained, stabilized, and used as an exterior exhibit with interpretive signs and displays that tell the story of the Crook family. The educational camp would be relocated within English Camp along the administrative road and set back into the woods. The hospital would be rehabilitated and opened to the public. The 1979 double-wide trailer that serves as the temporary visitor center at American Camp would be removed and replaced with a permanent visitor center at the existing site, allowing for improved exhibits and more staff space. A collections study room for natural and cultural resource items, including a portion of military-era collections would be relocated to the park. The collections study room would be located at the park headquarters or at the permanent visitor center and would be easily accessible to park staff. The pre-history collections would be retained at the University of Washington's Burke Museum in Seattle. The existing road to the redoubt off Pickett's Lane would be removed and converted to a trail. In the officers' quarters duplex, half would be rehabilitated for use an interpretive exhibit that shows a typical officers quarters and the other half would be available as a study house. The cultural landscapes would be enhanced to aid visitor understanding and interpretation through a variety of techniques. The prairie would be restored to native plant species. Historic buildings from the encampment period would be returned to their original locations. Off-island interpretation would be enhanced through partnerships. The park would propose boundary adjustments at both camps to include important natural and cultural resources related to the purpose of the park. Development costs and annual recurring costs for the preferred Alternative are estimated at 7.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protection, preservation, and interpretation of the historic camps and other sites would be ensured and enhanced. The importance of the island in military history would be emphasized. Increased visitation would increase recreational expenditures in local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation of the cultural landscape could result in short- and long-term disturbances to soil and vegetation and alteration of topography in some areas. Surface water quality on the island property could be affected by landscape rehabilitation and management and increased visitor use. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Public Law 89-565. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0058D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080437, 336 pages and maps, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - National Parks KW - Trails KW - Washington KW - San Juan Island National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Public Law 89-565, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH ACCESS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, DOYLE DRIVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754904889; 14402 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Doyle Drive (Route 101) to improve south access to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, San Francisco County, California is proposed. The bridge connects San Francisco and Marin counties across the San Francisco Bay. The roadway also provides limited access to the Presidio of San Francisco. Doyle Drive is located within the Presidio, a national historic landmark, providing access to such cultural and natural features as the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the Presidio, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Existing Doyle Drive, which was constructed nearly 70 years ago, is currently nearing the end of its useful life. Regular maintenance, seismic retrofitting, and rehabilitation activities have kept the structure safe, but a long-term solution to these problems is necessary. The eastern portion of the Corridor is located in a Liquefaction zone. Action A No-Build Alterative and two build alterative are considered in this final EIS. The first action alternative, which would involve reconstruction of the existing facility, would replace the 1,519-foot high viaduct and the 3,730-foot long, low viaduct with wider structures that would meet the current seismic and structural design standards. The second Action Alternative would replace the existing facility with a new six-lane parkway, with an eastbound auxiliary lane, extending between the Park Presidio six-lane facility and the new Presidio access at Girard Road. The new facility would consist of two 11-foot lanes and one 12-foot outside lane in each direction, with 9.75-foot outside shoulders and five-foot inside shoulders. In addition, an 11-foot auxiliary lane would run along southbound Doyle Drive from the Park Presidio interchange to the Girard Road exit ramp. The width of the proposed landscaped median would vary from 16 feet to 41 feet. The Veterans Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured. Other design chances would be implemented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the seismic, structural, and traffic safety of the roadway, maintaining the functions of the Doyle Drive Corridor as part of the regional and municipal transportation network. The natural, cultural, an scenic aspects of the facility would be preserved. Roadway design would minimize the impacts of noise and other pollution from the Doyle Drive Corridor on natural areas and recreational qualities at Crissy Field and other areas adjacent to the project area. Intermodal vehicular accessibility would be enhanced; a more appropriate parkway concept would replace the current design of the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the removal of one to 13 building, 1.5 to 12.6 acres of park and recreational lands, 6.75 to 52.45 acres of natural communities, and 0.54 to 0.88 acre of jurisdictional wetlands; wildlife habitat and skunkweeds and gumplants would be removed, and the Corridor would be more prone to invasion by weedy alien plant life. Under the parkway Alternative, the project would reduce the area for possible Crissy Marsh Expansion. Up to 118 additional parking spaces could be required within the local community. Area aesthetics could be marred by project structures and pavements, and the removal of existing Doyle Drive and associated and nearby features would alter the historic setting of the Presidio and the local neighborhood Traffic-generated noise would approach of exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 24 to 34 sensitive receptors along the Corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0155D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080438, Comments on Draft EIS and Responses--659 pages, October 24, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+ACCESS+TO+THE+GOLDEN+GATE+BRIDGE%2C+DOYLE+DRIVE%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 24, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -