TY  - RPRT
T1  - JOHN DAY BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRANT, WHEELER, GILLIAM, SHERMAN, WASCO, JEFFERSON, UMATILLA, AND MORROW COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - JOHN DAY BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRANT, WHEELER, GILLIAM, SHERMAN, WASCO, JEFFERSON, UMATILLA, AND MORROW COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 873131623; 14403-9_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan (RMP) for the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Prineville Field Office in Oregon is proposed. The 5.45-million-acre study area lies in Grant, Wheeler, Gilliam, Sherman, Wasco, Jefferson, Umatilla, and Morrow counties. If approved, this RMP, to be known as the John Day Basin RMP, would replace the Baker, Two Rivers and the John Day RMPs and would guide the management of public lands administered by the Prineville Field Office into the future. Approximately 77 percent of the BLM lands in the John Day Planning Area fall within the Blue Mountain Ecoregion, while the remaining 23 percent lie within the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Vegetation with the area is dominated by sagebrush shrubland, juniper woodland, dry and mesic mixed conifer forest, grassland, and riparian communities. The primary disturbance has been wildfire, with occasional episodes of insect infestations and/or disease epidemics and wind and moisture-driven erosion. The existing RMPs were establishing during the 1980s and, since then, the RMPs have been rendered out-of-date due to changed circumstances and new information on socioeconomic and biologic conditions within the planning area; new laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or supercede previous decisions; changed user demands and activities that result in new resource impacts and user conflicts; and changed acceptance of impacts by the public. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to landscape health, access and travel management, and wildlife and recreation resources associated with the newly acquired North Fork John Day River. Five 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 address landscape health issues by means of various measures to management vegetation, fire, and fuels as well as soils, aquatic habitat, wildlife, livestock grazing, wild horses, and lands and realty. The access and travel management issues would be addressed by means of restriction of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to designated roads and trails, with a few exceptions; allow cross-country OHV use on 4,488 acres in the Rudio Plateau under an adaptive management regime, unless specified ecological or social thresholds were reached; restriction of OHV use on 367,298 acres to designated roads and trails and closure of 84,823 acres to cross-country OHV use; and designation a 333-mile interim transportation system, including 86 miles of road opened year-round, 138 miles of road opened seasonally, and nine miles of road that are "land locked" and, therefore, inaccessible to the public. The majority of closed roads under this Alternative are currently inaccessible to the public. With respect to the lands and waters acquired in association with the North Fork John Day River, the preferred Alternative would designate the 37-mile segment of the river as eligible for potential inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers as a Scenic River. When implementing the Grazing Matrix tool, the river-associate lands and waters would be treated as a special management area similar in ecological value to wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, research natural areas, and areas of critical environmental concern. The nine allotments containing acquired lands in the river Corridor would be treated a s having been voluntarily relinquished and Grazing Decision Matrix results would determine the proper resource uses. Two of the nine grazing allotments containing acquired lands within the Corridor would be available for use as reserve forage allotments, while the remaining seven would be unauthorized for grazing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By updating the existing RMPs, the proposal would allow appropriate exploitative uses of the Prineville Field Office-administered lands and resources, while preventing undue damage to natural and recreational resources, particularly uses that would affect the North Fork John Day Scenic River. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Closure of seven grazing allotments would reduce the economic productivity of the livestock sector in the area. Natural, scenic, and other recreational values within the area would be disturbed, degraded, and/or destroyed by exploitative uses such as mineral extraction, management measures such as prescribed burning, and recreational uses, particularly OHV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080439, Draft EIS--577 pages, Appendices--202 pages, CD-ROM, October 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Fork John Day River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - John Day Basin Resource Management Area
KW  - Baker Resource Management Area
KW  - Two Rivers Resource Management Area
KW  - Prineville Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JOHN DAY BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRANT, WHEELER, GILLIAM, SHERMAN, WASCO, JEFFERSON, UMATILLA, AND MORROW COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - JOHN DAY BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRANT, WHEELER, GILLIAM, SHERMAN, WASCO, JEFFERSON, UMATILLA, AND MORROW COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 873129868; 14403-9_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan (RMP) for the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Prineville Field Office in Oregon is proposed. The 5.45-million-acre study area lies in Grant, Wheeler, Gilliam, Sherman, Wasco, Jefferson, Umatilla, and Morrow counties. If approved, this RMP, to be known as the John Day Basin RMP, would replace the Baker, Two Rivers and the John Day RMPs and would guide the management of public lands administered by the Prineville Field Office into the future. Approximately 77 percent of the BLM lands in the John Day Planning Area fall within the Blue Mountain Ecoregion, while the remaining 23 percent lie within the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Vegetation with the area is dominated by sagebrush shrubland, juniper woodland, dry and mesic mixed conifer forest, grassland, and riparian communities. The primary disturbance has been wildfire, with occasional episodes of insect infestations and/or disease epidemics and wind and moisture-driven erosion. The existing RMPs were establishing during the 1980s and, since then, the RMPs have been rendered out-of-date due to changed circumstances and new information on socioeconomic and biologic conditions within the planning area; new laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or supercede previous decisions; changed user demands and activities that result in new resource impacts and user conflicts; and changed acceptance of impacts by the public. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to landscape health, access and travel management, and wildlife and recreation resources associated with the newly acquired North Fork John Day River. Five 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 address landscape health issues by means of various measures to management vegetation, fire, and fuels as well as soils, aquatic habitat, wildlife, livestock grazing, wild horses, and lands and realty. The access and travel management issues would be addressed by means of restriction of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to designated roads and trails, with a few exceptions; allow cross-country OHV use on 4,488 acres in the Rudio Plateau under an adaptive management regime, unless specified ecological or social thresholds were reached; restriction of OHV use on 367,298 acres to designated roads and trails and closure of 84,823 acres to cross-country OHV use; and designation a 333-mile interim transportation system, including 86 miles of road opened year-round, 138 miles of road opened seasonally, and nine miles of road that are "land locked" and, therefore, inaccessible to the public. The majority of closed roads under this Alternative are currently inaccessible to the public. With respect to the lands and waters acquired in association with the North Fork John Day River, the preferred Alternative would designate the 37-mile segment of the river as eligible for potential inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers as a Scenic River. When implementing the Grazing Matrix tool, the river-associate lands and waters would be treated as a special management area similar in ecological value to wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, research natural areas, and areas of critical environmental concern. The nine allotments containing acquired lands in the river Corridor would be treated a s having been voluntarily relinquished and Grazing Decision Matrix results would determine the proper resource uses. Two of the nine grazing allotments containing acquired lands within the Corridor would be available for use as reserve forage allotments, while the remaining seven would be unauthorized for grazing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By updating the existing RMPs, the proposal would allow appropriate exploitative uses of the Prineville Field Office-administered lands and resources, while preventing undue damage to natural and recreational resources, particularly uses that would affect the North Fork John Day Scenic River. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Closure of seven grazing allotments would reduce the economic productivity of the livestock sector in the area. Natural, scenic, and other recreational values within the area would be disturbed, degraded, and/or destroyed by exploitative uses such as mineral extraction, management measures such as prescribed burning, and recreational uses, particularly OHV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080439, Draft EIS--577 pages, Appendices--202 pages, CD-ROM, October 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Fork John Day River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - John Day Basin Resource Management Area
KW  - Baker Resource Management Area
KW  - Two Rivers Resource Management Area
KW  - Prineville Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129868?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - JOHN DAY BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRANT, WHEELER, GILLIAM, SHERMAN, WASCO, JEFFERSON, UMATILLA, AND MORROW COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 754904594; 14403
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan (RMP) for the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Prineville Field Office in Oregon is proposed. The 5.45-million-acre study area lies in Grant, Wheeler, Gilliam, Sherman, Wasco, Jefferson, Umatilla, and Morrow counties. If approved, this RMP, to be known as the John Day Basin RMP, would replace the Baker, Two Rivers and the John Day RMPs and would guide the management of public lands administered by the Prineville Field Office into the future. Approximately 77 percent of the BLM lands in the John Day Planning Area fall within the Blue Mountain Ecoregion, while the remaining 23 percent lie within the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Vegetation with the area is dominated by sagebrush shrubland, juniper woodland, dry and mesic mixed conifer forest, grassland, and riparian communities. The primary disturbance has been wildfire, with occasional episodes of insect infestations and/or disease epidemics and wind and moisture-driven erosion. The existing RMPs were establishing during the 1980s and, since then, the RMPs have been rendered out-of-date due to changed circumstances and new information on socioeconomic and biologic conditions within the planning area; new laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or supercede previous decisions; changed user demands and activities that result in new resource impacts and user conflicts; and changed acceptance of impacts by the public. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to landscape health, access and travel management, and wildlife and recreation resources associated with the newly acquired North Fork John Day River. Five 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 address landscape health issues by means of various measures to management vegetation, fire, and fuels as well as soils, aquatic habitat, wildlife, livestock grazing, wild horses, and lands and realty. The access and travel management issues would be addressed by means of restriction of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to designated roads and trails, with a few exceptions; allow cross-country OHV use on 4,488 acres in the Rudio Plateau under an adaptive management regime, unless specified ecological or social thresholds were reached; restriction of OHV use on 367,298 acres to designated roads and trails and closure of 84,823 acres to cross-country OHV use; and designation a 333-mile interim transportation system, including 86 miles of road opened year-round, 138 miles of road opened seasonally, and nine miles of road that are "land locked" and, therefore, inaccessible to the public. The majority of closed roads under this Alternative are currently inaccessible to the public. With respect to the lands and waters acquired in association with the North Fork John Day River, the preferred Alternative would designate the 37-mile segment of the river as eligible for potential inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers as a Scenic River. When implementing the Grazing Matrix tool, the river-associate lands and waters would be treated as a special management area similar in ecological value to wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, research natural areas, and areas of critical environmental concern. The nine allotments containing acquired lands in the river Corridor would be treated a s having been voluntarily relinquished and Grazing Decision Matrix results would determine the proper resource uses. Two of the nine grazing allotments containing acquired lands within the Corridor would be available for use as reserve forage allotments, while the remaining seven would be unauthorized for grazing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By updating the existing RMPs, the proposal would allow appropriate exploitative uses of the Prineville Field Office-administered lands and resources, while preventing undue damage to natural and recreational resources, particularly uses that would affect the North Fork John Day Scenic River. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Closure of seven grazing allotments would reduce the economic productivity of the livestock sector in the area. Natural, scenic, and other recreational values within the area would be disturbed, degraded, and/or destroyed by exploitative uses such as mineral extraction, management measures such as prescribed burning, and recreational uses, particularly OHV use. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).
JF  - EPA number: 080439, Draft EIS--577 pages, Appendices--202 pages, CD-ROM, October 23, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Biologic Surveys
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Roads
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Soils
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - North Fork John Day River
KW  - Oregon
KW  - John Day Basin Resource Management Area
KW  - Baker Resource Management Area
KW  - Two Rivers Resource Management Area
KW  - Prineville Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904594?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 23, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266236; 14398-080434_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266236?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266235; 14398-080434_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266235?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266234; 14398-080434_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266234?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266138; 14398-080434_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266138?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266120; 14398-080434_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266120?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266119; 14398-080434_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266115; 14398-080434_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266115?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part  of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266114; 14398-
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266114?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 757266113; 14398-080434_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757266113?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST RAIL CORRIDOR, FORT WORTH, HALTOM CITY, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, COLLEYVILLE, AND GRAPEVINE IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
AN  - 754904868; 14398
AB  - PURPOSE: Commuter rail improvements in the Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor serving the cities of Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine in Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. Sustained residential growth and expanding employment opportunities within the Corridor have resulted in increasing travel demand along major roadways. Existing and committed roadway improvements cannot keep pace with increases in traffic volumes on major roadways, resulting in steadily increasing congestion and air pollutant levels that exceed federal standards; the Corridor lies within a non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone levels. Access to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport (DFWA) and major activity centers beyond the Fort Worth Transportation Authority's service area is limited due to lack of transit service. Three alternatives, including the commuter rail Alternative, an Alternative involving baseline transportation infrastructure combined with transportation system management, and a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed commuter rail Alternative would operate on portions of the Cotton Belt railroad lines owned by the Fort Worth and Western Railroad, Union Pacific, and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. The commuter rail line would extend from southwest Fort Worth at a point near Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWA. The 37-mile system would be served by stations at the following 15 locations: Sycamore School Road, Interstate 20/Granbury Road, Texas Christian University/Berry, the Medical District, the existing Texas and Pacific Railroad terminal, the existing Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, North Side, Beach Street, Haltom City/US 377, North Richland Hills-Iron Horse, North Richland Hills-Smithfield, Colleyville-John McCain, Grapevine-Main Street, DFWA-North, and DFWA-Terminal A/B. A new bridge would carry the rail line across the Trinity River. This commuter trains would run on an at-grade, single-track line shared with freight trains for nearly the entire route. Diesel multiple-unit technology would be the likely vehicle choice for the commuter rail Alternative. Once operational, the trains would run at 20-minute intervals during the peak morning and evening hours and at 60-minute intervals during midday hours and post-peak evening hours. Capital cost estimates for the commuter rail Alternative range from $502.3 million to $531.3 million in 2008 dollars. Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $80.8 million to $81.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The commuter rail Alternative would provide multimodal solutions for mobility in the Corridor that would mitigate congestion and improve air quality. Improved mobility among regional activity centers would ease commuting and boost the local economy. Construction activities would employ 4,090 workers and result in the creation of 2,860 indirect jobs. Seventy percent of the population within one mile of the Corridor are minority group members, who would benefit from improved access without suffering disproportionately from the rail line's adverse impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station development would require the displacement of three residences and 21 to 24 businesses as well as 61 acres of woodlands that could provide habitat to nine federally protected species. The rail alignment lies within a 100-year floodplain at 18 locations, and the project would affect seven wetlands, though less than 0.5 acre of wetland would be lost. The viewscapes related to certain historic sites would be significantly altered by rail infrastructure. Train-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 372 residences and moderate increases in noise would affect 667 residences. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601).
JF  - EPA number: 080434, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--375 pages, Volume 3--479 pages, Volume 4--412 pages, October 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Air Quality Standards Violations
KW  - Airports
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Rapid Transit Systems
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Terminal Facilities
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Texas
KW  - Federal Transit Law, Funding
KW  - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904868?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 756827491; 14393-080429_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of geothermal resources under lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the western United States is proposed. Affected states are Alaska California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New, Mexico, Oregon, Utah Washington, and Wyoming. The proposed action would make geothermal leasing decisions on pending lease applications submitted prior to January 1, 2005 and to facilitate geothermal leasing decisions on other existing and future lease applications and nominations on the federal mineral estate in the western United States. Approximately 142 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 160 million acres of USFS lands overlay geothermal resources suitable for commercial electric generation and direct uses, such as heating. The BLM and the USFS are proposing to allocate approximately 117 million acres of public lands and 75 million acres of USFS lands as open to geothermal leasing. To protect special resource values, the BLM and USFS have developed a comprehensive list of stipulations, conditions of approval, and best management practices. Under the proposed action, the BLM would amend 122 land use plans to adopt the allocations and the appropriate stipulations and the USFS would use this final programmatic EIS (PEIS) to facilitate subsequent consent decisions for any leasing on USFS lands. An Alternative to the proposed action would limit the lands available for geothermal leasing to those that were in close proximity to existing transmission lines or those already under development. The No Action Alternative would allow the processing of pending geothermal lease applications; however, lease applications would be evaluated on a case-by-case bases and each case would require environmental review. This PEIS also provides site-specific analysis for 19 pending lease applications submitted prior to January 1, 2005, that are located in seven geographical clusters throughout Alaska, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed Action would provide for an efficient, effective means of clearing the backlog of lease applications, thereby opening valuable geothermal resources for use in generating electricity and other more direct applications. Geothermal energy would provide a safe, environmentally neutral means of displacing the use of fossil fuels, reducing the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of geothermal resources would result in the long-term loss of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat as well as the sedimentation of streams in the affected watersheds. Recreational values, including visual aesthetics, would be degraded due to the destruction of vegetation and natural geologic and Paleontological resource sites and the placement of power plants and transmission infrastructure. Other land uses, such as livestock grazing, would be displaced by geothermal exploitation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1992, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0264D, Volume 32, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080429, Final Programmatic Analysis--641 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices--398 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-44
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Forests
KW  - Heating Plants
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
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/756827491?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Francisco, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 756827357; 14393-080429_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of geothermal resources under lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the western United States is proposed. Affected states are Alaska California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New, Mexico, Oregon, Utah Washington, and Wyoming. The proposed action would make geothermal leasing decisions on pending lease applications submitted prior to January 1, 2005 and to facilitate geothermal leasing decisions on other existing and future lease applications and nominations on the federal mineral estate in the western United States. Approximately 142 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 160 million acres of USFS lands overlay geothermal resources suitable for commercial electric generation and direct uses, such as heating. The BLM and the USFS are proposing to allocate approximately 117 million acres of public lands and 75 million acres of USFS lands as open to geothermal leasing. To protect special resource values, the BLM and USFS have developed a comprehensive list of stipulations, conditions of approval, and best management practices. Under the proposed action, the BLM would amend 122 land use plans to adopt the allocations and the appropriate stipulations and the USFS would use this final programmatic EIS (PEIS) to facilitate subsequent consent decisions for any leasing on USFS lands. An Alternative to the proposed action would limit the lands available for geothermal leasing to those that were in close proximity to existing transmission lines or those already under development. The No Action Alternative would allow the processing of pending geothermal lease applications; however, lease applications would be evaluated on a case-by-case bases and each case would require environmental review. This PEIS also provides site-specific analysis for 19 pending lease applications submitted prior to January 1, 2005, that are located in seven geographical clusters throughout Alaska, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed Action would provide for an efficient, effective means of clearing the backlog of lease applications, thereby opening valuable geothermal resources for use in generating electricity and other more direct applications. Geothermal energy would provide a safe, environmentally neutral means of displacing the use of fossil fuels, reducing the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of geothermal resources would result in the long-term loss of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat as well as the sedimentation of streams in the affected watersheds. Recreational values, including visual aesthetics, would be degraded due to the destruction of vegetation and natural geologic and Paleontological resource sites and the placement of power plants and transmission infrastructure. Other land uses, such as livestock grazing, would be displaced by geothermal exploitation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1992, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0264D, Volume 32, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080429, Final Programmatic Analysis--641 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices--398 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-44
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Forests
KW  - Heating Plants
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
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/756827357?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Francisco, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - GEOTHERMAL LEASING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, ALASKA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 756827350; 14393-080429_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The leasing of geothermal resources under lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the western United States is proposed. Affected states are Alaska California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New, Mexico, Oregon, Utah Washington, and Wyoming. The proposed action would make geothermal leasing decisions on pending lease applications submitted prior to January 1, 2005 and to facilitate geothermal leasing decisions on other existing and future lease applications and nominations on the federal mineral estate in the western United States. Approximately 142 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM and 160 million acres of USFS lands overlay geothermal resources suitable for commercial electric generation and direct uses, such as heating. The BLM and the USFS are proposing to allocate approximately 117 million acres of public lands and 75 million acres of USFS lands as open to geothermal leasing. To protect special resource values, the BLM and USFS have developed a comprehensive list of stipulations, conditions of approval, and best management practices. Under the proposed action, the BLM would amend 122 land use plans to adopt the allocations and the appropriate stipulations and the USFS would use this final programmatic EIS (PEIS) to facilitate subsequent consent decisions for any leasing on USFS lands. An Alternative to the proposed action would limit the lands available for geothermal leasing to those that were in close proximity to existing transmission lines or those already under development. The No Action Alternative would allow the processing of pending geothermal lease applications; however, lease applications would be evaluated on a case-by-case bases and each case would require environmental review. This PEIS also provides site-specific analysis for 19 pending lease applications submitted prior to January 1, 2005, that are located in seven geographical clusters throughout Alaska, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed Action would provide for an efficient, effective means of clearing the backlog of lease applications, thereby opening valuable geothermal resources for use in generating electricity and other more direct applications. Geothermal energy would provide a safe, environmentally neutral means of displacing the use of fossil fuels, reducing the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of geothermal resources would result in the long-term loss of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat as well as the sedimentation of streams in the affected watersheds. Recreational values, including visual aesthetics, would be degraded due to the destruction of vegetation and natural geologic and Paleontological resource sites and the placement of power plants and transmission infrastructure. Other land uses, such as livestock grazing, would be displaced by geothermal exploitation facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1992, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0264D, Volume 32, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080429, Final Programmatic Analysis--641 pages, Analysis for Pending Lease Applications--397 pages, Appendices--398 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-44
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Forests
KW  - Heating Plants
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Geothermal Resources
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alaska
KW  - California
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Idaho
KW  - Montana
KW  - Nevada
KW  - New Mexico
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Utah
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
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/756827350?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, San Francisco, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES.
AN  - 756824630; 13653-080428_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the permanent program regulations of the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) with respect to permit application requirements and review procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil from surface coal mining operations into waters of the United States. In addition, the OSM would modify its backfilling and grading regulations to minimize the recreation of excess spoil and its regulation governing surface coal mining operations within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams to more closely track the underlying statutory provisions. After briefly considering 16 alternatives, this final EIS focuses on four reasonable action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative (Alterative 1) would revise the regulations applicable to excess spoil generation and placement to further reduce the adverse Environmental effects stemming from excess spoil fill construction. The OSM would require the applicant for a surface coal mining permit to demonstrate that the operation would avoid the generation of excess spoil or, if that is not practicable, require that the volume of excess spoil be minimized. OSM would require that excess spoil fills be designed and constructed to be no larger than needed to accommodate the anticipated excess spoil. Finally, OSM would require the applicant to consider various Alternative spoil disposal plans in which the size, numbers, and locations of excess spoil fills vary and to submit an analysis showing that the preferred excess spoil disposal plan would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. Similarly, OSM would revise its coal waste disposal regulations to require permit applicants to describe the steps to be taken to minimize the adverse impacts and identify and analyze the Environmental impacts of disposal methods and potential locations. Stream buffer zone regulations would be modified to clarify the kinds of coal mining activities subject to the rule. The OSM would also revise the criteria for authorizing variances from the 100-foot buffer zone to more accurately reflect the statutory basis for the rule. Finally, OSM would extend coverage of the requirement of a 100-foot buffer to waterbodies other than streams so as to apply the rule to lakes, ponds, and adjacent wetlands. OSM is also considering a variant of this Alternative under which OSM would largely retain the existing buffer zone rule language, but would modify the criteria for allowing a variance of the 100-foot buffer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to reducing the Environmental impacts resulting from acid leaching the release of other toxic wastes from surface mine wastes, the revised regulations would clarify and streamline the regulatory requirements and procedures involved in submitting a permit application for a surface mining plan. The preferred Alternative would extend regulatory protection to bodies of water other than streams, including lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Hydrology, water quality, and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial fauna, including federally protected species would receive a greater level of protection. No additional permitting or mining costs would be anticipated under any of the action alternatives. The revised regulations would forward the ends of environmental justice mandates, thereby benefitting minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations affected by surface mining. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regulations could increase flooding due to mine waste disposal in some watersheds. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 07-0329D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080428, Draft EIS 228 pages. Appendices--766 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: OSM-EIS-34
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Mining
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Regulation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824630?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES.
AN  - 756824574; 13653-080428_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the permanent program regulations of the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) with respect to permit application requirements and review procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil from surface coal mining operations into waters of the United States. In addition, the OSM would modify its backfilling and grading regulations to minimize the recreation of excess spoil and its regulation governing surface coal mining operations within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams to more closely track the underlying statutory provisions. After briefly considering 16 alternatives, this final EIS focuses on four reasonable action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative (Alterative 1) would revise the regulations applicable to excess spoil generation and placement to further reduce the adverse Environmental effects stemming from excess spoil fill construction. The OSM would require the applicant for a surface coal mining permit to demonstrate that the operation would avoid the generation of excess spoil or, if that is not practicable, require that the volume of excess spoil be minimized. OSM would require that excess spoil fills be designed and constructed to be no larger than needed to accommodate the anticipated excess spoil. Finally, OSM would require the applicant to consider various Alternative spoil disposal plans in which the size, numbers, and locations of excess spoil fills vary and to submit an analysis showing that the preferred excess spoil disposal plan would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. Similarly, OSM would revise its coal waste disposal regulations to require permit applicants to describe the steps to be taken to minimize the adverse impacts and identify and analyze the Environmental impacts of disposal methods and potential locations. Stream buffer zone regulations would be modified to clarify the kinds of coal mining activities subject to the rule. The OSM would also revise the criteria for authorizing variances from the 100-foot buffer zone to more accurately reflect the statutory basis for the rule. Finally, OSM would extend coverage of the requirement of a 100-foot buffer to waterbodies other than streams so as to apply the rule to lakes, ponds, and adjacent wetlands. OSM is also considering a variant of this Alternative under which OSM would largely retain the existing buffer zone rule language, but would modify the criteria for allowing a variance of the 100-foot buffer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to reducing the Environmental impacts resulting from acid leaching the release of other toxic wastes from surface mine wastes, the revised regulations would clarify and streamline the regulatory requirements and procedures involved in submitting a permit application for a surface mining plan. The preferred Alternative would extend regulatory protection to bodies of water other than streams, including lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Hydrology, water quality, and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial fauna, including federally protected species would receive a greater level of protection. No additional permitting or mining costs would be anticipated under any of the action alternatives. The revised regulations would forward the ends of environmental justice mandates, thereby benefitting minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations affected by surface mining. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regulations could increase flooding due to mine waste disposal in some watersheds. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 07-0329D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080428, Draft EIS 228 pages. Appendices--766 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: OSM-EIS-34
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Mining
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Regulation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824574?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES.
AN  - 756824493; 13653-080428_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the permanent program regulations of the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) with respect to permit application requirements and review procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil from surface coal mining operations into waters of the United States. In addition, the OSM would modify its backfilling and grading regulations to minimize the recreation of excess spoil and its regulation governing surface coal mining operations within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams to more closely track the underlying statutory provisions. After briefly considering 16 alternatives, this final EIS focuses on four reasonable action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative (Alterative 1) would revise the regulations applicable to excess spoil generation and placement to further reduce the adverse Environmental effects stemming from excess spoil fill construction. The OSM would require the applicant for a surface coal mining permit to demonstrate that the operation would avoid the generation of excess spoil or, if that is not practicable, require that the volume of excess spoil be minimized. OSM would require that excess spoil fills be designed and constructed to be no larger than needed to accommodate the anticipated excess spoil. Finally, OSM would require the applicant to consider various Alternative spoil disposal plans in which the size, numbers, and locations of excess spoil fills vary and to submit an analysis showing that the preferred excess spoil disposal plan would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. Similarly, OSM would revise its coal waste disposal regulations to require permit applicants to describe the steps to be taken to minimize the adverse impacts and identify and analyze the Environmental impacts of disposal methods and potential locations. Stream buffer zone regulations would be modified to clarify the kinds of coal mining activities subject to the rule. The OSM would also revise the criteria for authorizing variances from the 100-foot buffer zone to more accurately reflect the statutory basis for the rule. Finally, OSM would extend coverage of the requirement of a 100-foot buffer to waterbodies other than streams so as to apply the rule to lakes, ponds, and adjacent wetlands. OSM is also considering a variant of this Alternative under which OSM would largely retain the existing buffer zone rule language, but would modify the criteria for allowing a variance of the 100-foot buffer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to reducing the Environmental impacts resulting from acid leaching the release of other toxic wastes from surface mine wastes, the revised regulations would clarify and streamline the regulatory requirements and procedures involved in submitting a permit application for a surface mining plan. The preferred Alternative would extend regulatory protection to bodies of water other than streams, including lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Hydrology, water quality, and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial fauna, including federally protected species would receive a greater level of protection. No additional permitting or mining costs would be anticipated under any of the action alternatives. The revised regulations would forward the ends of environmental justice mandates, thereby benefitting minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations affected by surface mining. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regulations could increase flooding due to mine waste disposal in some watersheds. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 07-0329D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080428, Draft EIS 228 pages. Appendices--766 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: OSM-EIS-34
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Mining
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Regulation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824493?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - REVISIONS TO THE PERMANENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 CONCERNING THE CREATION AND DISPOSAL OF EXCESS SPOIL AND COAL MINE WASTE AND STREAM BUFFER ZONES.
AN  - 756824478; 13653-080428_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the permanent program regulations of the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) with respect to permit application requirements and review procedures for applications that propose to place excess spoil from surface coal mining operations into waters of the United States. In addition, the OSM would modify its backfilling and grading regulations to minimize the recreation of excess spoil and its regulation governing surface coal mining operations within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams to more closely track the underlying statutory provisions. After briefly considering 16 alternatives, this final EIS focuses on four reasonable action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred Alternative (Alterative 1) would revise the regulations applicable to excess spoil generation and placement to further reduce the adverse Environmental effects stemming from excess spoil fill construction. The OSM would require the applicant for a surface coal mining permit to demonstrate that the operation would avoid the generation of excess spoil or, if that is not practicable, require that the volume of excess spoil be minimized. OSM would require that excess spoil fills be designed and constructed to be no larger than needed to accommodate the anticipated excess spoil. Finally, OSM would require the applicant to consider various Alternative spoil disposal plans in which the size, numbers, and locations of excess spoil fills vary and to submit an analysis showing that the preferred excess spoil disposal plan would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. Similarly, OSM would revise its coal waste disposal regulations to require permit applicants to describe the steps to be taken to minimize the adverse impacts and identify and analyze the Environmental impacts of disposal methods and potential locations. Stream buffer zone regulations would be modified to clarify the kinds of coal mining activities subject to the rule. The OSM would also revise the criteria for authorizing variances from the 100-foot buffer zone to more accurately reflect the statutory basis for the rule. Finally, OSM would extend coverage of the requirement of a 100-foot buffer to waterbodies other than streams so as to apply the rule to lakes, ponds, and adjacent wetlands. OSM is also considering a variant of this Alternative under which OSM would largely retain the existing buffer zone rule language, but would modify the criteria for allowing a variance of the 100-foot buffer. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to reducing the Environmental impacts resulting from acid leaching the release of other toxic wastes from surface mine wastes, the revised regulations would clarify and streamline the regulatory requirements and procedures involved in submitting a permit application for a surface mining plan. The preferred Alternative would extend regulatory protection to bodies of water other than streams, including lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Hydrology, water quality, and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial fauna, including federally protected species would receive a greater level of protection. No additional permitting or mining costs would be anticipated under any of the action alternatives. The revised regulations would forward the ends of environmental justice mandates, thereby benefitting minorities, the elderly, and low-income populations affected by surface mining. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regulations could increase flooding due to mine waste disposal in some watersheds. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 07-0329D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080428, Draft EIS 228 pages. Appendices--766 pages, October 17, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: OSM-EIS-34
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Disposal
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Fish
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Mining
KW  - Regulations
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Tailings
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Regulation
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824478?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 17, 2008
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 2]
T2  - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248.
AN  - 756824559; 13651-080426_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 8060 acres containing 873.6 million tons of in-place federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Bell 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 10 miles south-southeast of Gillette. The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. RAG Coal West, Inc. applied for access to the federal coal reserves to be serve 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 draft 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. POSITIVE IMPACTS: 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 MMT to 584.8 MMT, and 169.1 and 525.9. 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, irretrievable 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080426, Draft EIS--726 pages, Appendices--171 pages, October 16, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-09/001+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/756824559?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-16&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 16, 2008
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 2]
T2  - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248.
AN  - 756824550; 13651-080426_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 8060 acres containing 873.6 million tons of in-place federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Bell 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 10 miles south-southeast of Gillette. The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. RAG Coal West, Inc. applied for access to the federal coal reserves to be serve 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 draft 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. POSITIVE IMPACTS: 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 MMT to 584.8 MMT, and 169.1 and 525.9. 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, irretrievable 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080426, Draft EIS--726 pages, Appendices--171 pages, October 16, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-09/001+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/756824550?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 16, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTH GILLETTE AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING: WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, WYW161248.
AN  - 36343146; 13651
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 8060 acres containing 873.6 million tons of in-place federal coal. The four coal companies, operators of the adjacent Bell 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 10 miles south-southeast of Gillette. The tract, originally referred to as the Belle Ayr Mine Extension LBA Tract, was assigned case file number WYW161248. RAG Coal West, Inc. applied for access to the federal coal reserves to be serve 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 draft 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. POSITIVE IMPACTS: 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 MMT to 584.8 MMT, and 169.1 and 525.9. 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, irretrievable 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080426, Draft EIS--726 pages, Appendices--171 pages, October 16, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-09/001+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/36343146?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-16&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 16, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 3 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756825219; 13645-080420_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825219?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 16 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756825043; 13645-080420_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825043?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 15 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756825027; 13645-080420_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825027?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 14 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756825012; 13645-080420_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825012?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 8 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824988; 13645-080420_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824988?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 1 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824943; 13645-080420_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824943?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 12 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824899; 13645-080420_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824899?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 24 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824869; 13645-080420_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 24
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824869?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 21 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824854; 13645-080420_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 21
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824854?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 18 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824839; 13645-080420_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824839?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 11 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824829; 13645-080420_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824829?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 25 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824814; 13645-080420_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 25
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824814?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 22 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824809; 13645-080420_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 22
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824809?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 23 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824800; 13645-080420_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 23
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824800?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 19 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824798; 13645-080420_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 19
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824798?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 13 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824790; 13645-080420_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824790?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 7 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824789; 13645-080420_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824789?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 20 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824787; 13645-080420_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 20
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824787?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 17 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824782; 13645-080420_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824782?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 5 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824769; 13645-080420_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824769?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 6 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824762; 13645-080420_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824762?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 4 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824758; 13645-080420_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824758?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 2 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824623; 13645-080420_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824623?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 26 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824583; 13645-080420_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 26
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824583?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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+Allied+Health&rft.atitle=Establishing+a+practice+climate+in+academic+settings&rft.au=Peloquin%2C+Suzanne+M%3BOsborne%2C+Karen+A&rft.aulast=Peloquin&rft.aufirst=Suzanne&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=78&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Allied+Health&rft.issn=00907421&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 10 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824566; 13645-080420_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 10
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824566?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO. [Part 9 of 26]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO.
AN  - 756824552; 13645-080420_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the City of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. A recirculated draft EIS, published in July of 2008, assessed a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the United States, and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. This final EIS forwards the same project facilities and the Same alternatives as the recirculated draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associate renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the original draft EIS and the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0267D, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080420, Volume 1--846 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,664 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,094 pages, Volume 4--1,112 pages and maps, October 10, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824552?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 5 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756825213; 13641-080416_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825213?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 4 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756825212; 13641-080416_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825212?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 3 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756824998; 13641-080416_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824998?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 8 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756824993; 13641-080416_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824993?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 1 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756824934; 13641-080416_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824934?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 2 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756824928; 13641-080416_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824928?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 7 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756824636; 13641-080416_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824636?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT. [Part 6 of 8]
T2  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 756824597; 13641-080416_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824597?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - REVISION OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE WESTERN OREGON BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS OF SALEM, EUGENE, ROSEBURG, COOS BAY, AND MEDFORD AND THE KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA OF THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT.
AN  - 36345989; 13641
AB  - PURPOSE: Revision of the resource management plans (RMPs) for the six Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management areas (RMAs), encompassing 2.6 million acres of public lands, in western Oregon is proposed. The areas under consideration include the Coos Bay, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem RMAs. The public lands within the six RMAs lie within the 22-million-acre western Oregon planning area. The RMPs must be revised because: 10 recent BLM plan evaluations found that the BLM has not been achieving timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information that was available in 1995 on the impacts of sustained yield management on other resources; 2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the RMPs with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under development; and 3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of BLM-administered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered by the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries as well as other benefits related to management of watersheds, stream flows, and recreation resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the provision of a sustainable supply of wood and other forest projects; conservation of federally protected species; compliance of federal clean water standards; reduction of wildfire risk and re-establishment of the historic fire regime into the ecosystem; and provisions for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management to meet public demand and protect the affected natural resources. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regimes for the six RMAs, are considered in this final EIS. Key features of the alternatives address late-successional vegetation, critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl activity centers, green tree retention, snag retention, down wood, salvage harvesting of timber, and riparian management area zones. In addition, the RMA revisions would provide for specific changes to the management direction for areas of critical Environmental concern and research natural areas, scenic values as identified by visual resource management inventories, and sensitive species protection measures. The preferred Alternative would designate late-successional management areas based on habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, apply new criteria for designating the width of riparian management areas, and provide for intensive timber management in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. The designation and/or management of ACECs would insure the protection of valuable and, in some cases, unique natural resources. Timber production would contribute to the local, regional, and national economies, and livestock grazing would contribute to the local economy. Fire management would prevent the buildup of fuels that could result in wildland fires and help restore the natural fire regime. Cultural, paleontological and, recreational resources would be preserved and protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Timber production and OHV encroachments into natural areas would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and paleontological resource sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0346D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080416, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--621 pages, Volume III--657 pages, Volume IV--712 pages, Map Packet, October 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fisheries Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Coos Bay Resource Management Area
KW  - Eugene Resource Management Area
KW  - Klamath Falls Resource Management Area
KW  - Lakeview Resource Management Area
KW  - Medford Resource Management Area
KW  - Oregon
KW  - Roseburg Resource Management Area
KW  - Salem Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act, Program Authorization
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36345989?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ABSALOKA MINE CROW RESERVATION SOUTH EXTENSION COAL LEASE APPROVAL, PROPOSED MINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND RELATED FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITTING ACTIONS, BIG HORN COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - ABSALOKA MINE CROW RESERVATION SOUTH EXTENSION COAL LEASE APPROVAL, PROPOSED MINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND RELATED FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITTING ACTIONS, BIG HORN COUNTY, MONTANA.
AN  - 756824663; 13632-080406_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of existing permits from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is proposed by Westmoreland Resources, Inc. (WRI) to allow the extension of the Absaloka Mine, a surface mining operation, in Big Horn County, Montana. Since 1974, WRI has owned and operated the Absaloka Mine, a surface coal mine located in the Crow Ceded Area of northeastern Big Horn County, approximately 30 miles east of Hardin, on what is known as the Tract III Coal Lease. Although the Tract III Coal Lease lies outside the Crow Indian Reservation, the coal estate is part of the reservation, hence, is held in trust by the federal government for the Crow Tribe. In 2004, WRI entered into an Exploration and Option to Lease Agreement with the Crow Tribe under the Indian Mineral Development Act (IMDA) for a coal reserve area encompassing 3,660 acres on the reservation. The lease tract lies south of and adjacent to the Tract III Coal Lease. WRI exercised its lease option on June 1, 2006, for this coal reserve, which WRI refers to as the proposed Absaloka Mine Crow Reservation South Extension. WRI's permit area is almost entirely within the Tract III Coal Lease, extending to the reservation boundary. The permit area contains coal reserves that are not yet included within Absaloka Mine's currently approved mining plan. The currently permitted mining area would sustain the current production rate of 6.5 to 7.0 million tons of coal per year only through 2009. Within the Tract III Revision area, approximately 13 million additional tons of coal could be mined, extending the mine life through 2011. Additional approval of the IMDA lease would add 94 million tons of in-place coal reserves, of which WRI estimates 77 million tons are recoverable and marketable. The addition of 77 million tons to the mine operation would extend its productive life to 2020 or 2021 at a production rate of 6.5 to 7.0 million tons per year. In addition to approval of WRI's permit application, this final EIS considers a refusal of the BIA application and acceptance of the state OSM applications, and a No Action Alternative under which no WRI permit application would be accepted. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised permit, extending the mining area, would allow WRI to maximize coal recovery and ultimately facilitate an orderly advancement of mining operations into the South Extension. In fact, the extension is a logical, integral part of the development of the surface mine and would provide for an tens of millions of tons of coal, helping the national reduce its dependence on foreign sources of energy and providing employment in the mining sector in the area through 2021. The Crow Tribe would receive $200 million in royalties for allowing WRI to mine the expanded lease site. WRI would continue to employ 70 to 130 tribe members. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The site geology from the base of the Rosebud-McKay coal seam to the land surface would be permanently altered. Mining would remove the coal aquifer and any water-bearing overburden and water levels in the coal and overburden aquifers adjacent to the mine pits would be depressed as a result of seepage into the mine and dewartering activities. Most of the Sarpy Creek watershed, and the associated vegetation and wildlife habitat, would be damaged or destroyed by currently planned or proposed activities. Surface runoff characteristics would be significantly altered and sedimentation rates could increase. Wetlands would decline by 0.9 acres. Habitat for the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses could be affected. Mining would impact 30 archaeological and historic sites, including eight sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Open-pit mining of the area would degrade visual aesthetics, but the area has already been significantly degraded in this respect. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Mineral Development Act 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 08-0157D, Volume 32, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080406, Record of Decision--15 pages, Final EIS--117 pages, October 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Coal
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Drainage
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mines
KW  - Mining
KW  - Sediment
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Montana
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act, Compliance
KW  - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824663?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 32 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125442; 13630-4_0032
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 32
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125442?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 31 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125440; 13630-4_0031
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 31
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125440?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 30 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125436; 13630-4_0030
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 30
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125436?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 29 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125431; 13630-4_0029
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 29
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125431?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 28 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125427; 13630-4_0028
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 28
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125427?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 20 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125419; 13630-4_0020
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 20
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125419?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 19 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125413; 13630-4_0019
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 19
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125413?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 18 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125407; 13630-4_0018
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 18
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125407?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 17 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125402; 13630-4_0017
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 17
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125402?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 16 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125395; 13630-4_0016
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 16
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125395?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 15 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125387; 13630-4_0015
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 15
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125387?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 11 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125382; 13630-4_0011
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 11
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125382?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 10 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125368; 13630-4_0010
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 10
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125368?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 9 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125359; 13630-4_0009
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 9
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125359?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 8 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125355; 13630-4_0008
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 8
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125355?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 7 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125350; 13630-4_0007
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 7
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125350?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 38 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125216; 13630-4_0038
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 38
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125216?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 37 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125210; 13630-4_0037
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 37
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125210?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 36 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125206; 13630-4_0036
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 36
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125206?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 27 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125203; 13630-4_0027
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 27
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125203?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 26 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125199; 13630-4_0026
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 26
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125199?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 25 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125194; 13630-4_0025
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 25
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125194?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 14 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125189; 13630-4_0014
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 14
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125189?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ABSALOKA+MINE+CROW+RESERVATION+SOUTH+EXTENSION+COAL+LEASE+APPROVAL%2C+PROPOSED+MINE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+AND+RELATED+FEDERAL+AND+STATE+PERMITTING+ACTIONS%2C+BIG+HORN+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=ABSALOKA+MINE+CROW+RESERVATION+SOUTH+EXTENSION+COAL+LEASE+APPROVAL%2C+PROPOSED+MINE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+AND+RELATED+FEDERAL+AND+STATE+PERMITTING+ACTIONS%2C+BIG+HORN+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, Salt Lake, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 13 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125182; 13630-4_0013
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 13
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125182?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 12 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125176; 13630-4_0012
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 12
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125176?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 35 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125119; 13630-4_0035
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 35
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125119?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 34 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125116; 13630-4_0034
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 34
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125116?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 33 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125111; 13630-4_0033
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 33
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125111?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 24 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125108; 13630-4_0024
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 24
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125108?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 23 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125106; 13630-4_0023
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 23
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125106?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 22 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125104; 13630-4_0022
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 22
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125104?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 21 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125103; 13630-4_0021
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 21
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125103?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 2 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125091; 13630-4_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125091?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 1 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125090; 13630-4_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125090?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&rft.title=REVISION+OF+THE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLANS+OF+THE+WESTERN+OREGON+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+DISTRICTS+OF+SALEM%2C+EUGENE%2C+ROSEBURG%2C+COOS+BAY%2C+AND+MEDFORD+AND+THE+KLAMATH+FALLS+RESOURCE+AREA+OF+THE+LAKEVIEW+DISTRICT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 6 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125084; 13630-4_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125084?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 5 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125083; 13630-4_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125083?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&rft.title=GRAND+STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GARFIELD+AND+KANE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+AND+COCONINO+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA%3A+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT+AND+RANGELAND+HEALTH+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 4 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125082; 13630-4_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125082?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. [Part 3 of 38]
T2  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 873125081; 13630-4_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125081?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT, GARFIELD AND KANE COUNTIES, UTAH AND COCONINO COUNTIES, ARIZONA: MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND RANGELAND HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
AN  - 36352014; 13630
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision off livestock grazing and range management direction for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Garfield and Kane counties, Utah and Coconino County, Arizona is proposed. The planning area encompasses 2.7 million acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The area includes portions of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Completed in 1981, the current direction for grazing and ranges has become out-of-date and should be replaced by a management regime that addresses changes in resource conditions and resource use. The existing management direction for grazing consists of the Escalante, Paria, Vermilion, and Zion management framework plans (MFPs), along with the more recent Monument Management Plan (MMP), established in 2000 and covering most of the lands in the study area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. Each management Alternative addresses livestock grazing management, vegetation management, soils, revegetation, riparian habitat, water resources, special status species, wildlife habitat in general, cultural resources, recreational values, and regional socioeconomics. The preferred Alternative (Alternative C) would achieve rangeland health standards over the life of the MMP by making allotment-specific modifications to grazing management. These management changes would include distribution adjustments, stocking adjustments, and temporary suspension of grazing on less than 10 percent of the authorized allotments when rangeland health standards assessments and monitoring indicate such actions were needed to meet resource objectives. Rangeland restoration and future installation of structural improvements would be assessed. Grazing permits would be renewed with modified terms and conditions consistent with the actions proposed in this Alternative. Decisions for grazing and range management on lands in the planning area outside the GSENM would be integrated into the Kanab Resource Management Plan currently in preparation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The MMP amendment proposed here would allow the integration of livestock and rangeland management with the other resource management directions outlined in the MMP, while clearly replacing the less integrated MFPs. A more comprehensive, integrated approach to resource management and protection would be achieved in the long-term. The GSENM ranges, which have historically supported, would be available for grazing, an important economic use of the area and an integral aspect of its natural resource management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued grazing would present the potential for soil erosion and compaction, trampling and chiseling of streambanks, sediment discharge into surface waters, and adverse impacts on the water table and hydrologic function of meadows, water temperature, and adverse impacts on riparian and native meadow vegetation, wildlife habitats, recreation opportunities, and costs to the permittees' cattle operations. Stocking adjustments and suspension of grazing could significantly reduce the operating incomes of grazing permittees in the GSENM. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)).
JF  - EPA number: 080404, 431 pages, CD-ROM, October 1, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-08-007-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
KW  - Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352014?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA, GUNNISON AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA, GUNNISON AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 756824697; 13612-080387_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The official designation of the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA) as such and the establishment of a revised resource protection plan for the NRA and for contiguous lands in Gunnison and Montrose counties, Colorado are proposed. The 41,790-acre Curecanti NRA lies in southwestern Colorado, stretching approximately 20 miles along the Gunnison River. The NRA provides a variety of river-based recreational opportunities in a spectacular geological setting. Though it has been managed as an NRA it has never been officially established as such. Under the proposed action, the management plan would officially establish Curecanti as an NRA, which would include the existing informally established NRA and 10,040 contiguous acres currently managed by state agencies and federal agencies other than the National Park Service (NPS). The Bureau of Reclamation would continue to operate and maintain the dams, reservoirs, associated power plants, access roads, and related facilities within Curecanti, pursuant to Bureau-related legislation, while the NPS would manage the natural and cultural resources, as well as recreational opportunities and facilities within the NRA boundary. This EIS does not address BLM management of the area. The NPS would also work in partnership with a designated Conservation Opportunity Area surrounding the NRA in the service of the ends of resource conservation, including the acquisition of land from willing sellers via fee simple and easement arrangements. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative that would perpetuate the existing management regime. Estimated First cost of implementing the plan ranges from $3.7 million to $15 million. Annual costs, which consider only staff costs, are estimated at $160,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation and management of the Curecanti NRA would protect its invaluable recreational, geologic, and scenic resources, as well as associated cultural values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private inholdings within the NRA boundary would continue to be subject to land uses that would be incompatible with the purposes of the NRA. Most impacts related to inholdings would be related to visual aesthetics, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat. The plan could result in disturbance to geological and paleontological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison National Conservation Area of 1999, Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Reclamation Act of 1902 . PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0259D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080387, 392 pages, September 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-37
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Easements
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Curecanti National Recreational Area
KW  - Gunnison River
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison National Conservation Area of 1999, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Program Authorization
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824697?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Gunnison, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA, GUNNISON AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATIONAL AREA, GUNNISON AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO.
AN  - 756824638; 13612-080387_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The official designation of the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA) as such and the establishment of a revised resource protection plan for the NRA and for contiguous lands in Gunnison and Montrose counties, Colorado are proposed. The 41,790-acre Curecanti NRA lies in southwestern Colorado, stretching approximately 20 miles along the Gunnison River. The NRA provides a variety of river-based recreational opportunities in a spectacular geological setting. Though it has been managed as an NRA it has never been officially established as such. Under the proposed action, the management plan would officially establish Curecanti as an NRA, which would include the existing informally established NRA and 10,040 contiguous acres currently managed by state agencies and federal agencies other than the National Park Service (NPS). The Bureau of Reclamation would continue to operate and maintain the dams, reservoirs, associated power plants, access roads, and related facilities within Curecanti, pursuant to Bureau-related legislation, while the NPS would manage the natural and cultural resources, as well as recreational opportunities and facilities within the NRA boundary. This EIS does not address BLM management of the area. The NPS would also work in partnership with a designated Conservation Opportunity Area surrounding the NRA in the service of the ends of resource conservation, including the acquisition of land from willing sellers via fee simple and easement arrangements. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative that would perpetuate the existing management regime. Estimated First cost of implementing the plan ranges from $3.7 million to $15 million. Annual costs, which consider only staff costs, are estimated at $160,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation and management of the Curecanti NRA would protect its invaluable recreational, geologic, and scenic resources, as well as associated cultural values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private inholdings within the NRA boundary would continue to be subject to land uses that would be incompatible with the purposes of the NRA. Most impacts related to inholdings would be related to visual aesthetics, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat. The plan could result in disturbance to geological and paleontological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison National Conservation Area of 1999, Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-485), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and Reclamation Act of 1902 . PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0259D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080387, 392 pages, September 24, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-37
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Easements
KW  - Geologic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Curecanti National Recreational Area
KW  - Gunnison River
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison National Conservation Area of 1999, Compliance
KW  - Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Program Authorization
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Reclamation Act of 1902, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824638?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=CURECANTI+NATIONAL+RECREATIONAL+AREA%2C+GUNNISON+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Gunnison, Colorado; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 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 (STB FINANCE DOCKET NO. 35468).
AN  - 36351432; 14031
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 right-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 of several culverts and bridges. Several routing options are contained within the proposed action. This final EIS includes a copy of the December, 2008 draft EIS which, in addition to the proposed action, considers a No Action Alternative, as well as various common segments, alternative segments, and connector segments. The recommended alternatives include the North Common Segment, any of the three Eielson alternative segments, Selcha Alternative Segment 1, Connector Segment B, Central Alternative Segment 2, Connector Segment E, either of the Donnelly alternative segments, South Common Segment, and Delta Alternative Segment 1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: 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 less 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 other 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.), 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: 090327, Final EIS--320 pages, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--571 pages, September 18, 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/36351432?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-18&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+%28STB+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+%28STB+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 - 2010-03-22
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - NC 12 REPLACEMENT OF HERBERT C. BONNER BRIDGE, (BRIDGE NO. 11) OVER OREGON INLET, DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
AN  - 16386939; 13598
AB  - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across the Oregon Inlet in Dare County, North Carolina is proposed in this draft supplement 2005 supplemental draft EIS on the project. Built in 1962, the existing Bonner Bridge is approaching the end of its reasonably service life. The structure is part of North Carolina (NC) 12and provides the only highway connection between Hatteras Island and Bodie Island. Two replacement bridge corridors and several design options are considered in this final EIS. The Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor would provide for a 17.5 mile bridge within an overall project length of 18 miles, including the bridge and the approach roads at the northern and southern termini. The typical section for the Pamlico Sound bridge would provide for two 12-foot travel lanes and two eight-foot shoulders. The span would provide a minimum navigation opening of 200 feet horizontally and 75 feet vertically. Estimated costs of the Pamlico and Parallel bridge crossings range from $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion. Five options are associated With Parallel Bridge Corridor. The corridor would cross the Oregon Inlet via a 2.7-mile bridge. The NC 12 maintenance component would keep NC 12 open from the community of Rodanthe to the Oregon Inlet bridge's southern terminus, a distance of 12.5 miles. The maintenance component would pass through Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The Nourishment option would assume that NC 12 would remain in its current location and beach nourishment plus dune enhancement would be used to maintain a minimally adequate beach and dune system,. The total length of the beach requiring regular nourishment would be approximately 6.3 miles. Nourishment would occur at four locations and would repeated at four-year intervals. The Road North/Bridge South option would place NC 12 on a bridge west of Hatteras Island beginning at a new intersection in Rodanthe and continuing to a point approximately two miles north of the refuge's southern boundary, where the project would meet NC 12. Beginning at a point 1.3 miles south of the refuge's ponds, NC 12 would be relocated to a point 230 feet west of the forecast worst-case 2060 shoreline. This relocation would continue 7.1 miles north until the relocated NC 12 would meet Oregon Inlet bridge. Three 10-foot-high dunes, extending a total length of 2,100 feet, would be provided, but not immediately. The dunes would be provided as the shoreline erodes toward the relocated road, beginning in 2030. The All Bridge option would include the same bridge in the Rodanthe area as the Road North/Bridge South option. In the central and northern part of the refuge, NC 12 would be constructed on a bridge to the west of the existing road. Two road segments would be included in this relocation, one near Oregon Inlet and one just north of the refuge's ponds, where access from NC 12 to the refuge would be provided. The bridges associated With this alternative would span five potential storm-related island breach locations. The Parallel Bridge Corridor, With phased approach, option would provide for an Oregon Inlet bridge and the relocation of portions of NC 12 through the refuge and northern Rodanthe on new bridges within the existing NC 12 easement. The option would be implemented in four phases, With the First phase providing the bridge across Oregon Inlet. The typical section for the Oregon Inlet bridge would provide two 12-foot travel lanes and two six-foot shoulders. The navigation zone would be up to 5,000 feet long, With a vertical clearance of approximately 75 feet. The estimated cost for the Parallel Bridge Corridor alternative would be $671.8 million to 970.4 million for nourishment, $602.2 million to $740.2 million for the Road North/Bridge South option, $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion for the All Bridge option, and $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion for the phased approach option. The demolition of the existing Bonner Bridge is estimated to cost $4.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide an upgrade of the only connection between Hatteras the Bodie Island and, hence, from Hatteras to the mainland. The modern, safe, efficient crossing would enhance residential, commercial, and recreational access throughout the Outer Banks barrier islands and promote emergency response and hurricane evacuation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Pamlico South Bridge Corridor development would affect 10.8 to 12.8 acres of biotic communities, including 4.2 to 4.8 acres of wetlands. The Parallel Bridge Corridor would affect up to 91.6 acres of biotic communities, including extensive wetland areas. Under the Pamlico Sound Bridge Corridor Alternative, rights-of-way development would displace one business and five homes. The Road North/Bridge South Alternatives would displace two homes and a commercial building that contains a business and a residence. Charter fishing vessels operating out of Oregon Inlet Marine and Fishing Center would no longer be able to use an unmarked natural channel, known as "the crack," to reach the ocean. At Rodanthe, panoramic views of the Pamlico Sound from homes along the sound's shoreline would be changed under all alternatives except the Parallel Bridge Corridor With Nourishment option. The project would affect, but not remove, the Oregon Inlet U.S. Coast Guard Station, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The replacement bridge would be constructed in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at up to two residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of a supplement to the draft EIS, see 07-0141D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080373, Final EIS--751 pages, Appendices--422 pages, September 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-93-01-F
KW  - Bays
KW  - Beaches
KW  - Bridges
KW  - Dunes
KW  - Fish
KW  - Highways
KW  - Highway Structures
KW  - Hurricane Readiness Plans
KW  - Islands
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Navigation
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Preserves
KW  - Relocations-Property Acquisitions
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Shores
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - North Carolina
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
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/16386939?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NC+12+REPLACEMENT+OF+HERBERT+C.+BONNER+BRIDGE%2C+%28BRIDGE+NO.+11%29+OVER+OREGON+INLET%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NC+12+REPLACEMENT+OF+HERBERT+C.+BONNER+BRIDGE%2C+%28BRIDGE+NO.+11%29+OVER+OREGON+INLET%2C+DARE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT STANWIX NATIONAL MONUMENT, ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - FORT STANWIX NATIONAL MONUMENT, ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 756825232; 13590-080365_0001
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 Fiscal Year 1997, two studies examining areas that are geographically and thematically relevant to Fort Stanwix NM, those studies addressing Oriskany Battlefield Historic Site in Whitestown and the Northern Frontier, encompassing a 10-county area in central New York. Neither areas were 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 draft 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 capacity 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 74-291.
JF  - EPA number: 080365, 93 pages, September 16, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-37
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/756825232?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2008
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. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BROADWATER, DEER LODGE, GALLATIN, JEFFERSON, LEWIS AND CLARK, SILVER BOW, PARK, AND BEAVERHEAD COUNTIES, MONTANA.
AN  - 756824686; 13591-080366_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 Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, 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, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) 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: Vegetative 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, Volume I--537 pages, Volume II--415, Volume III--214 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, September 16, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-45
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/756824686?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 16, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - FORT STANWIX NATIONAL MONUMENT, ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK.
AN  - 16387271; 13590
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 Fiscal Year 1997, two studies examining areas that are geographically and thematically relevant to Fort Stanwix NM, those studies addressing Oriskany Battlefield Historic Site in Whitestown and the Northern Frontier, encompassing a 10-county area in central New York. Neither areas were 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 draft 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 capacity 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 74-291.
JF  - EPA number: 080365, 93 pages, September 16, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-37
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/16387271?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 16, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF MAY 2004). [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF MAY 2004).
AN  - 756824883; 13589-080364_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. 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. Five management prescriptions define the targeted visitor experiences and resource conditions that could occur under the alternatives. Five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, would be allowed. This supplement to the draft EIS addresses three key management issues, as follows: 1) determination of the most 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, the supplement considers six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would drawn toward a system of developed hubs in which administrative and interpretive facilities would be located. The hubs would be placed at strategic north, central and south locations along the 48-mile-long park to optimize visitor experience and understanding of the park. Expansion and distribution of access throughout the park, including newly acquired parcels, would provide diverse types of visitor experiences. New facilities would be developed and existing facilities refurbished. Connectivity to existing neighborhoods would be optimized. Reliance on cooperative efforts With local organizations and agencies would increases to enhance levels of connectivity, avoid resource degradation, and increase resource protection through public education. 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. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0071D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080364, 427 pages, September 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-26
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  - Chattahoochee 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/756824883?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2004%29.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2004%29.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF MAY 2004). [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF MAY 2004).
AN  - 756824744; 13589-080364_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. 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. Five management prescriptions define the targeted visitor experiences and resource conditions that could occur under the alternatives. Five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, would be allowed. This supplement to the draft EIS addresses three key management issues, as follows: 1) determination of the most 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, the supplement considers six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would drawn toward a system of developed hubs in which administrative and interpretive facilities would be located. The hubs would be placed at strategic north, central and south locations along the 48-mile-long park to optimize visitor experience and understanding of the park. Expansion and distribution of access throughout the park, including newly acquired parcels, would provide diverse types of visitor experiences. New facilities would be developed and existing facilities refurbished. Connectivity to existing neighborhoods would be optimized. Reliance on cooperative efforts With local organizations and agencies would increases to enhance levels of connectivity, avoid resource degradation, and increase resource protection through public education. 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. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0071D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080364, 427 pages, September 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-26
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  - Chattahoochee 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/756824744?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2004%29.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2004%29.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF MAY 2004).
AN  - 16376128; 13589
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. 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. Five management prescriptions define the targeted visitor experiences and resource conditions that could occur under the alternatives. Five developed zones, covering approximately 2.7 percent of the total park area, would be allowed. This supplement to the draft EIS addresses three key management issues, as follows: 1) determination of the most 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, the supplement considers six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would drawn toward a system of developed hubs in which administrative and interpretive facilities would be located. The hubs would be placed at strategic north, central and south locations along the 48-mile-long park to optimize visitor experience and understanding of the park. Expansion and distribution of access throughout the park, including newly acquired parcels, would provide diverse types of visitor experiences. New facilities would be developed and existing facilities refurbished. Connectivity to existing neighborhoods would be optimized. Reliance on cooperative efforts With local organizations and agencies would increases to enhance levels of connectivity, avoid resource degradation, and increase resource protection through public education. 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. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0071D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080364, 427 pages, September 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-26
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  - Chattahoochee 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/16376128?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2004%29.&rft.title=CHATTAHOOCHEE+RIVER+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ATLANTA%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2004%29.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RIVERTON DOME COAL BED NATURAL GAS AND CONVENTIONAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RIVERTON DOME PROJECT AREA, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - RIVERTON DOME COAL BED NATURAL GAS AND CONVENTIONAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RIVERTON DOME PROJECT AREA, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 756825005; 13584-080359_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of coal bed natural gas (CBNG) and conventional gas facilities within the Riverton Dome Project Area of Fremont County, Wyoming are proposed. The 13,804-acre project area lies five miles southeast of Riverton on the Wind River Indian Reservation. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes hold the rights to 12,656 acres of surface area and minerals, while 1,148 acres of surface and mineral rights lie in private hands. Prior to the initiation of the EIS process, Devon Energy and Production Company, L.P., the applicant, proposed a 20-well pilot CBNG project to determine whether commercial quantities of CBNG are present in the Riverton Dome Field, determine the amount of water produced from the wells, evaluate produced water disposal options, and determine the spacing needed to drain the reservoir. To date, 10 of the wells were approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, have been drilled, and are producing CBNG. The remaining 10 pilot wells are included in the proposed action. Two methods of water disposal have been implemented for the pilot project, namely, injection wells and evaporation ponds. The preferred method of disposal of water from the CBNG wells is the existing produced water disposal well, which has been approved as an underground injection control class II well. In addition, two eight-acre, 385,000-barrel evaporation ponds have been developed for produced water disposal. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would result in the development of CBNG wells and conventional gas wells on Devon's existing leases and on additional leases it has formally requested from the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes. Using a 40-acre well spacing pattern, a maximum of 326 CBNG wells and 20 conventional gas wells would be drilled. However, Devon anticipates that 40-acre spacing could only be necessary under certain circumstances. At 80-acre spacing, up to 163 CBNG and 10 conventional gas wells would be drilled. Under Alternative B, which would result in the development of Devon's existing leases, a maximum of 151 CBNG wells could be drilled at 40-acre spacing as well as 20 conventional gas wells. At 80-acre spacing, a maximum of 70 CBNG wells and 20 conventional wells would be drilled. Under the No Action Alternative, wells would e developed only on fee surface and minerals, through individual permit actions issued by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, on a case-by-case basis. Devon estimates that a maximum of 24 CBNG wells at 40-acre spacing and two conventional gas wells could be drilled within private mineral holdings. If 80-acre spacing were implemented, a total of 12 CBNG wells and two conventional gas wells would be drilled. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acceptance of Devon's proposal, or something similar thereto, would allow the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes to develop their mineral rights under lease to Devon, enhancing the economic situation of the tribes and helping ensure their sovereignty. The natural gas would help meet regional needs for energy and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of natural gas. Either action alternative would employ 122 workers during the 10-year development phase and 31 workers during the 30-year production phase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative A, well, pipeline, and compressor station development and construction of roads, and power lines would result in 1,511 acres of surface disturbance, including 21 acres of wetlands, 123 acres of critical winter range, and 15 acres of mule deer habitat. After interim reclamation, 680 acres of land would remain disturbed throughout the 20- to 40-year life of the project. The alternative would result in the loss of 35 animal unit months of livestock forage in the long-term. Under Alternative B, well, pipeline, and compressor station development and construction of roads, and power lines would result in 858 acres of surface disturbance, including 21 acres of wetlands, 28 acres of critical winter range, and 20 acres of sever winter relief habitat. After interim reclamation, 373 acres of land would remain disturbed throughout the 20- to 40-year life of the project. The alternative would result in the loss of 34 animal unit months of livestock forage in the long-term. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) and Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0427D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080359, Final EIS--607 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Documents, September 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825005?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIVERTON+DOME+COAL+BED+NATURAL+GAS+AND+CONVENTIONAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERTON+DOME+PROJECT+AREA%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=RIVERTON+DOME+COAL+BED+NATURAL+GAS+AND+CONVENTIONAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+RIVERTON+DOME+PROJECT+AREA%2C+FREMONT+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RIVERTON DOME COAL BED NATURAL GAS AND CONVENTIONAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RIVERTON DOME PROJECT AREA, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - RIVERTON DOME COAL BED NATURAL GAS AND CONVENTIONAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RIVERTON DOME PROJECT AREA, FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING.
AN  - 756824900; 13584-080359_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The development and operation of coal bed natural gas (CBNG) and conventional gas facilities within the Riverton Dome Project Area of Fremont County, Wyoming are proposed. The 13,804-acre project area lies five miles southeast of Riverton on the Wind River Indian Reservation. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes hold the rights to 12,656 acres of surface area and minerals, while 1,148 acres of surface and mineral rights lie in private hands. Prior to the initiation of the EIS process, Devon Energy and Production Company, L.P., the applicant, proposed a 20-well pilot CBNG project to determine whether commercial quantities of CBNG are present in the Riverton Dome Field, determine the amount of water produced from the wells, evaluate produced water disposal options, and determine the spacing needed to drain the reservoir. To date, 10 of the wells were approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, have been drilled, and are producing CBNG. The remaining 10 pilot wells are included in the proposed action. Two methods of water disposal have been implemented for the pilot project, namely, injection wells and evaporation ponds. The preferred method of disposal of water from the CBNG wells is the existing produced water disposal well, which has been approved as an underground injection control class II well. In addition, two eight-acre, 385,000-barrel evaporation ponds have been developed for produced water disposal. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would result in the development of CBNG wells and conventional gas wells on Devon's existing leases and on additional leases it has formally requested from the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes. Using a 40-acre well spacing pattern, a maximum of 326 CBNG wells and 20 conventional gas wells would be drilled. However, Devon anticipates that 40-acre spacing could only be necessary under certain circumstances. At 80-acre spacing, up to 163 CBNG and 10 conventional gas wells would be drilled. Under Alternative B, which would result in the development of Devon's existing leases, a maximum of 151 CBNG wells could be drilled at 40-acre spacing as well as 20 conventional gas wells. At 80-acre spacing, a maximum of 70 CBNG wells and 20 conventional wells would be drilled. Under the No Action Alternative, wells would e developed only on fee surface and minerals, through individual permit actions issued by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, on a case-by-case basis. Devon estimates that a maximum of 24 CBNG wells at 40-acre spacing and two conventional gas wells could be drilled within private mineral holdings. If 80-acre spacing were implemented, a total of 12 CBNG wells and two conventional gas wells would be drilled. Alternative B has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acceptance of Devon's proposal, or something similar thereto, would allow the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes to develop their mineral rights under lease to Devon, enhancing the economic situation of the tribes and helping ensure their sovereignty. The natural gas would help meet regional needs for energy and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of natural gas. Either action alternative would employ 122 workers during the 10-year development phase and 31 workers during the 30-year production phase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under Alternative A, well, pipeline, and compressor station development and construction of roads, and power lines would result in 1,511 acres of surface disturbance, including 21 acres of wetlands, 123 acres of critical winter range, and 15 acres of mule deer habitat. After interim reclamation, 680 acres of land would remain disturbed throughout the 20- to 40-year life of the project. The alternative would result in the loss of 35 animal unit months of livestock forage in the long-term. Under Alternative B, well, pipeline, and compressor station development and construction of roads, and power lines would result in 858 acres of surface disturbance, including 21 acres of wetlands, 28 acres of critical winter range, and 20 acres of sever winter relief habitat. After interim reclamation, 373 acres of land would remain disturbed throughout the 20- to 40-year life of the project. The alternative would result in the loss of 34 animal unit months of livestock forage in the long-term. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) and Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (25 U.S.C. 396a et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0427D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080359, Final EIS--607 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Documents, September 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Coal
KW  - Drilling
KW  - Employment
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Reclamation
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Waste Disposal
KW  - Wastewater
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, Compliance
KW  - Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824900?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Washakie, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING (RECORD OF DECISION).
AN  - 756825323; 13719-080337_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of 12 resource management plans to provide for the establishment of land allocations for the leasing of both oil shale and tar sands resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is proposed. The study area of the oil shale resources includes the most geographically prospective resources of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River and Washakie basins. The oil shale planning area encompasses 3.5 million acres of land, which includes 2.1 million acres of public lands and 158,566 acres of split estate. The study area designated for tar sands development include those locations designated as Special Tar Sand Areas in the geologic reports prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1980 and formalized by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. The tar sands planning area consists of 1.0 million acres of land, including 574,357 acres of public lands and 82,148 acres of split estate. If approved this programmatic EIS would amend the research management plans used to administer the following resource management areas: Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, White River, Brooks Cliffs, Diamond Mountain, Great Divide, Green River, Kemmerer, San Rafael, and San Juan. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in this final EIS of September 2008. The preferred Alternative (Alternative B), identified as such in the final EIS and in the Record of Decision published as the document at hand, would make approximately 2.0 million acres of federal lands and/or mineral estate containing oil shale resources available for application for leasing and development and approximately 430,000 acres available for leasing for tar sands development. This Alternative would open 359,798 acres in Colorado, 630,971 acres in Utah, and 1.0 million acres in Wyoming for oil shale development resulting in the production of an estimated 18 billion barrels, 28 billion barrels, and 17 billion barrels respectively. Both surface and underground technologies would be employed. Alternative C, which is similar to the preferred Alternative, would amend land use plans to identify areas available for application for commercial leasing, but would make only 830,000 acres containing oil shale resources and 230,000 acres of tar sands available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed amendment of the resource management plans would describe the most geologically prospective areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management where oil shale and tar sands resources were present and to designate which of these areas would be open for applications for commercial leasing. Lease development would add to the nation's oil supply and reserves and boost the regional economy via wages and other industry outlays. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing land uses would be displaced, temporarily or permanently, in the developed lease areas. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation for various periods of time. Mining would inadvertently destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Shale and tar sands removal in the vicinity of surface water flows would risk severe degradation of the water quality in those flows, and similar impacts could result from seepage of mining products into groundwater tables; many occurrences of both water sources would be eliminated entirely. Mining and related Road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080337, 91 pages, September 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-WO-GI-09-001-3900
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geology
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Shale
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Junction Resource Management Area
KW  - White River Resource Management Area
KW  - Brooks Cliffs Resource Management Area
KW  - Diamond Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Divide Resource Management Area
KW  - Green River Resource Management Area
KW  - Kemmerer Resource Management Area
KW  - San Rafael Resource Management Area
KW  - San Juan Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825323?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING (RECORD OF DECISION).
AN  - 16387445; 13719
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of 12 resource management plans to provide for the establishment of land allocations for the leasing of both oil shale and tar sands resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is proposed. The study area of the oil shale resources includes the most geographically prospective resources of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River and Washakie basins. The oil shale planning area encompasses 3.5 million acres of land, which includes 2.1 million acres of public lands and 158,566 acres of split estate. The study area designated for tar sands development include those locations designated as Special Tar Sand Areas in the geologic reports prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1980 and formalized by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. The tar sands planning area consists of 1.0 million acres of land, including 574,357 acres of public lands and 82,148 acres of split estate. If approved this programmatic EIS would amend the research management plans used to administer the following resource management areas: Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, White River, Brooks Cliffs, Diamond Mountain, Great Divide, Green River, Kemmerer, San Rafael, and San Juan. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in this final EIS of September 2008. The preferred Alternative (Alternative B), identified as such in the final EIS and in the Record of Decision published as the document at hand, would make approximately 2.0 million acres of federal lands and/or mineral estate containing oil shale resources available for application for leasing and development and approximately 430,000 acres available for leasing for tar sands development. This Alternative would open 359,798 acres in Colorado, 630,971 acres in Utah, and 1.0 million acres in Wyoming for oil shale development resulting in the production of an estimated 18 billion barrels, 28 billion barrels, and 17 billion barrels respectively. Both surface and underground technologies would be employed. Alternative C, which is similar to the preferred Alternative, would amend land use plans to identify areas available for application for commercial leasing, but would make only 830,000 acres containing oil shale resources and 230,000 acres of tar sands available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed amendment of the resource management plans would describe the most geologically prospective areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management where oil shale and tar sands resources were present and to designate which of these areas would be open for applications for commercial leasing. Lease development would add to the nation's oil supply and reserves and boost the regional economy via wages and other industry outlays. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing land uses would be displaced, temporarily or permanently, in the developed lease areas. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation for various periods of time. Mining would inadvertently destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Shale and tar sands removal in the vicinity of surface water flows would risk severe degradation of the water quality in those flows, and similar impacts could result from seepage of mining products into groundwater tables; many occurrences of both water sources would be eliminated entirely. Mining and related Road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080337, 91 pages, September 5, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: BLM-WO-GI-09-001-3900
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geology
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Shale
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Junction Resource Management Area
KW  - White River Resource Management Area
KW  - Brooks Cliffs Resource Management Area
KW  - Diamond Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Divide Resource Management Area
KW  - Green River Resource Management Area
KW  - Kemmerer Resource Management Area
KW  - San Rafael Resource Management Area
KW  - San Juan Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387445?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENTS+TO+ADDRESS+LAND+USE+ALLOCATIONS+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2009-07-16
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 5, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 873125524; 13576-1_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125524?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+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, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 873125327; 13576-1_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125327?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+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, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 873125317; 13576-1_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125317?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+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, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 873125308; 13576-1_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125308?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+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, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 873125295; 13576-1_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125295?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 873125161; 13576-1_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125161?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA.
AN  - 16389039; 13576
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a 40-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1968 and of a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is proposed to allow for the development of a green-design planned town, to be known as CSI Development, in southern Lincoln County, Nevada. The ITP would cover the federally protected desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owl. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would provide for residential areas, including single-family homes, residential villages, mixed-use villages, and various other types of residential villages; public buildings for community facilities and public services; commercial and light industrial development zones; hotel, resort, and casino development zones; nursery operations and sod farm areas; roads, bridges, heliports and other transportation infrastructure. Recreational facilities and open space areas, including golf courses, parks playing fields, and trails, would be provided. Conservation measures associated with the issuance of the ITP and the Section 404 permit would include measures to avoid wetlands, creation of wetland replacement areas, wildlife surveys, use of best management practices, installation of desert tortoise exclusion fencing, weed management, implementation of an adaptive management plan, and easements and/or wildlife management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permits would allow for the development of an integrated self-contained community in southern Lincoln County, an area where housing and the related public and commercial amenities are in great demand. The wetland and other habitat enhancements tied to the permits would ensure adequate habitat for the affected federally protected species as well as other species in the area dependent on wetland or desert habitat. The development would add 32,300 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual employee compensation to the county economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the site under the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 21,096 acres of native vegetation and up to 244 acres of Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. Critical habitat for all the above mentioned federally protected species would be lost, though enough habitat would remain to sustain the populations in the area. Approximately 23.6 acres of U.S. jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070455D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080351, Final EIS--330 pages and maps, Habitat Conservation Plan--296 pages, Appendices A through I--689 pages, Appendices J through S--722 pages, September 2, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Farm Management
KW  - Birds
KW  - Commercial Zones
KW  - Community Development
KW  - Community Facilities
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Easements
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Hotels
KW  - Housing
KW  - Industrial Parks
KW  - Open Space
KW  - Parks
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Resorts
KW  - Section 106 Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Site Planning
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Nevada
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16389039?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 2, 2008
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. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - JORDAN COVE ENERGY AND PACIFIC CONNECTOR GAS PIPELINE PROJECT, COOS, DOUGLAS, JACKSON, AND KLAMATH COUNTIES, OREGON.
AN  - 873125460; 13568-3_0001
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 from the existing Coos Bay navigation channel and slip; an LNG unloading berth and a transfer pipeline; two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each having a capacity of 1.0 barrels; a vapor-handling system and vaporization equipment capable of regasifying LNG for delivery into the natural gas sendout pipeline; piping, 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 230-mile, 36-inch underground sendout pipeline and a natural gas compression station, four natural gas meter stations, four 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 draft 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 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 160 workers, with total wages of $117 million; $74 million would be expended on goods and services in the region. Construction of the pipeline would employ 1,400, 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 wetlands, including 405 acres of wetlands affected by the pipeline system. The largest part of the pipeline system (64 percent) would traverse forest land, while 144 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 six 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080343, Volume I--269 pages, Volume II--533 pages, CD-ROM, August 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0223D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Soils Surveys
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/873125460?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 29, 2008
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  - 16387191; 13568
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 from the existing Coos Bay navigation channel and slip; an LNG unloading berth and a transfer pipeline; two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each having a capacity of 1.0 barrels; a vapor-handling system and vaporization equipment capable of regasifying LNG for delivery into the natural gas sendout pipeline; piping, 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 230-mile, 36-inch underground sendout pipeline and a natural gas compression station, four natural gas meter stations, four 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 draft 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 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 160 workers, with total wages of $117 million; $74 million would be expended on goods and services in the region. Construction of the pipeline would employ 1,400, 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 wetlands, including 405 acres of wetlands affected by the pipeline system. The largest part of the pipeline system (64 percent) would traverse forest land, while 144 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 six 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080343, Volume I--269 pages, Volume II--533 pages, CD-ROM, August 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0223D
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Soils Surveys
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/16387191?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-29&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 3 of 5]
T2  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756824905; 13564-080339_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) for the Monticello Resource Management Area (RMA) in San Juan and Grand counties, Utah is proposed. The 4.5-million-acre RMA contains 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 2.5 million acres of mineral estate. The RMA lies in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicle (OHV), mineral resources, special area designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and non-wilderness study area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, which was established in 1991, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for a balanced approach to management that addresses issues identified during public scoping. This alternative would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 418,667 acres would be closed to OHVs, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the RMA. Approximately 1,947 miles of travel routes would be designated. Five special recreation management areas, encompassing 508,512 acres would be designated. Six areas of critical environmental concern, and three river segments would be designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 395,329 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while leasing would be allowed on 629,472 acres under standard restrictions and allowed with no surface occupancy on 39,323 acres. The remaining 719,501 acres open to leasing would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources and grazing resources, within the office's administrative boundaries, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. Newly designated areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas would offer special protection to the resources of interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Energy and mineral development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 07-0448D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080339, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--449 pages, August 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monticello Resource Management Area
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/756824905?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%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, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 5]
T2  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756824882; 13564-080339_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) for the Monticello Resource Management Area (RMA) in San Juan and Grand counties, Utah is proposed. The 4.5-million-acre RMA contains 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 2.5 million acres of mineral estate. The RMA lies in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicle (OHV), mineral resources, special area designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and non-wilderness study area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, which was established in 1991, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for a balanced approach to management that addresses issues identified during public scoping. This alternative would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 418,667 acres would be closed to OHVs, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the RMA. Approximately 1,947 miles of travel routes would be designated. Five special recreation management areas, encompassing 508,512 acres would be designated. Six areas of critical environmental concern, and three river segments would be designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 395,329 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while leasing would be allowed on 629,472 acres under standard restrictions and allowed with no surface occupancy on 39,323 acres. The remaining 719,501 acres open to leasing would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources and grazing resources, within the office's administrative boundaries, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. Newly designated areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas would offer special protection to the resources of interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Energy and mineral development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 07-0448D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080339, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--449 pages, August 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monticello Resource Management Area
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/756824882?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 5 of 5]
T2  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756824841; 13564-080339_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) for the Monticello Resource Management Area (RMA) in San Juan and Grand counties, Utah is proposed. The 4.5-million-acre RMA contains 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 2.5 million acres of mineral estate. The RMA lies in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicle (OHV), mineral resources, special area designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and non-wilderness study area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, which was established in 1991, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for a balanced approach to management that addresses issues identified during public scoping. This alternative would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 418,667 acres would be closed to OHVs, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the RMA. Approximately 1,947 miles of travel routes would be designated. Five special recreation management areas, encompassing 508,512 acres would be designated. Six areas of critical environmental concern, and three river segments would be designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 395,329 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while leasing would be allowed on 629,472 acres under standard restrictions and allowed with no surface occupancy on 39,323 acres. The remaining 719,501 acres open to leasing would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources and grazing resources, within the office's administrative boundaries, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. Newly designated areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas would offer special protection to the resources of interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Energy and mineral development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 07-0448D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080339, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--449 pages, August 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monticello Resource Management Area
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/756824841?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%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, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 5]
T2  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756824831; 13564-080339_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) for the Monticello Resource Management Area (RMA) in San Juan and Grand counties, Utah is proposed. The 4.5-million-acre RMA contains 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 2.5 million acres of mineral estate. The RMA lies in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicle (OHV), mineral resources, special area designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and non-wilderness study area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, which was established in 1991, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for a balanced approach to management that addresses issues identified during public scoping. This alternative would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 418,667 acres would be closed to OHVs, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the RMA. Approximately 1,947 miles of travel routes would be designated. Five special recreation management areas, encompassing 508,512 acres would be designated. Six areas of critical environmental concern, and three river segments would be designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 395,329 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while leasing would be allowed on 629,472 acres under standard restrictions and allowed with no surface occupancy on 39,323 acres. The remaining 719,501 acres open to leasing would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources and grazing resources, within the office's administrative boundaries, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. Newly designated areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas would offer special protection to the resources of interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Energy and mineral development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 07-0448D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080339, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--449 pages, August 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monticello Resource Management Area
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/756824831?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 4 of 5]
T2  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756824828; 13564-080339_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) for the Monticello Resource Management Area (RMA) in San Juan and Grand counties, Utah is proposed. The 4.5-million-acre RMA contains 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 2.5 million acres of mineral estate. The RMA lies in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicle (OHV), mineral resources, special area designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and non-wilderness study area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, which was established in 1991, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for a balanced approach to management that addresses issues identified during public scoping. This alternative would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 418,667 acres would be closed to OHVs, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the RMA. Approximately 1,947 miles of travel routes would be designated. Five special recreation management areas, encompassing 508,512 acres would be designated. Six areas of critical environmental concern, and three river segments would be designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 395,329 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while leasing would be allowed on 629,472 acres under standard restrictions and allowed with no surface occupancy on 39,323 acres. The remaining 719,501 acres open to leasing would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources and grazing resources, within the office's administrative boundaries, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. Newly designated areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas would offer special protection to the resources of interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Energy and mineral development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 07-0448D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080339, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--449 pages, August 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monticello Resource Management Area
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/756824828?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%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, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MONTICELLO FIELD OFFICE, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 16386721; 13564
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) for the Monticello Resource Management Area (RMA) in San Juan and Grand counties, Utah is proposed. The 4.5-million-acre RMA contains 1.8 million acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 2.5 million acres of mineral estate. The RMA lies in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicle (OHV), mineral resources, special area designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and non-wilderness study area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, which was established in 1991, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would provide for a balanced approach to management that addresses issues identified during public scoping. This alternative would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, 2,311 acres would be open to cross-country OHV use, 418,667 acres would be closed to OHVs, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes in the remainder of the RMA. Approximately 1,947 miles of travel routes would be designated. Five special recreation management areas, encompassing 508,512 acres would be designated. Six areas of critical environmental concern, and three river segments would be designated as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Approximately 395,329 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, while leasing would be allowed on 629,472 acres under standard restrictions and allowed with no surface occupancy on 39,323 acres. The remaining 719,501 acres open to leasing would be managed with timing limitation or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of field office resources, particularly energy and mineral resources and grazing resources, within the office's administrative boundaries, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. Newly designated areas of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river segments, and cultural resource management areas would offer special protection to the resources of interest. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Energy and mineral development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 07-0448D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080339, Volume 1--366 pages and maps, Volume 2--671 pages, Volume 3--449 pages, August 27, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Energy Sources
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Monticello Resource Management Area
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/16386721?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%3A+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=MONTICELLO+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH%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, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS LAND USE ALLOCATIONS IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING.
AN  - 756824784; 13562-080337_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The amendment of 12 resource management plans to provide for the establishment of land allocations for the leasing of both oil shale and tar sands resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is proposed. The study area of the oil shale resources includes the most geographically prospective resources of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River and Washakie basins. The oil shale planning area encompasses 3.5 million acres of land, which includes 2.1 million acres of public lands and 158,566 acres of split estate. The study area for tar sands include those locations designated as Special Tar Sand Areas in the geologic reports prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1980 and formalized by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. The tar sands planning area consists of 1.0 million acres of land, including 574,357 acres of public lands and 82,148 acres of split estate. If approved this programmatic EIS would amend the research management plans used to administer the following resource management areas: Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, White River, Brooks Cliffs, Diamond Mountain, Great Divide, Green River, Kemmerer, San Rafael, and San Juan. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would make approximately 2.0 million acres of federal lands and/or mineral estate containing oil shale resources available for application for leasing and development and approximately 430,000 acres available for leasing for tar sands development. This alternative would open 359,798 acres in Colorado, 630,971 acres in Utah, and 1.0 million acres in Wyoming for oil shale development resulting in the production of an estimated 18 billion barrels, 28 billion barrels, and 17 billion barrels respectively. Both surface and underground technologies would be employed. Alternative C, which is similar to the preferred alternative, would amend land use plans to identify areas available for application for commercial leasing, but would make only 830,000 acres containing oil shale resources and 230,000 acres of tar sands available. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed amendment of the resource management plans would describe the most geologically prospective areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management where oil shale and tar sands resources were present and to designate which of these areas would be open for applications for commercial leasing. Lease development would add to the nation's oil supply and reserves and boost the regional economy via wages and other industry outlays. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Existing land uses would be displaced, temporarily or permanently, in the developed lease areas. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation for various periods of time. Mining would inadvertently destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Shale and tar sands removal in the vicinity of surface water flows would risk severe degradation of the water quality in those flows, and similar impacts could result from seepage of mining products into groundwater tables; many occurrences of both water sources would be eliminated entirely. Mining and related Road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080337, Volume 1--684 pages, Volume 2--607 pages, Volume 3--677 pages, CD-ROM, August 26, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-32
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geology
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Hydrocarbons
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Oil Shale
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Colorado
KW  - Glenwood Springs Resource Management Area
KW  - Grand Junction Resource Management Area
KW  - White River Resource Management Area
KW  - Brooks Cliffs Resource Management Area
KW  - Diamond Mountain Resource Management Area
KW  - Great Divide Resource Management Area
KW  - Green River Resource Management Area
KW  - Kemmerer Resource Management Area
KW  - San Rafael Resource Management Area
KW  - San Juan Resource Management Area
KW  - Utah Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824784?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 2 of 2]
T2  - ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756825014; 13560-080335_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Alabama and Mississippi. Within the two states, BLM administers 333 acres of public land surface and mineral e state and 704,850 acres of subsurface federal mineral estate over which the surface land is in non-federal ownership. BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by other federal agencies, excepting the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). BLM has the responsibility for lease issuance and post-lease administration of 1.64 million acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by the USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage since the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct leasing analysis to make land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing; this legal requirement does not apply to other federal surface management agencies. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, BLM would retain specific BLM-administered surface tracts, but would investigate opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies or organizations. In addition to management of fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 760,452 acres. Approximately 365 acres of habitat for the federally protected Alabama beach mouse would be closed to leasing. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would allow for disposal of all BLM-administered surface tracts, excepting the Hancock County tract in Mississippi. Some use restrictions would apply to certain tracts even after disposal. Management approaches would be taken regarding fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources would parallel those of Alternative 2; however, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Approximately 760,570 acres of non-USFS land would be open to oil and gas leasing Alternative 4 would also make all BLM-administered tracts available for disposal, with no specific conditions on use following sale. Otherwise, management stipulations would match those of Alternative 3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a coordinated approach to land and resources management, particularly with respect to oil and natural gas leasing, Stipulations to protect estuarine marsh ecosystem would support the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System. Removal of exotic invasive species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the federally protected tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Anticipated levels of oil and gas lease development (10 wells) would affect vegetation and soils and the associated terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat on 55 acres. Management activities on the Hancock County tract, including prescribed fire, could result in the loss of vegetation and soil erosion. Mineral leasing activities could also result in damage to cultural resource sites. Lease stipulations would increase minerals exploration and development costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Recreation and Public Purposes Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070372D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080335, 587 pages, August 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/ES/PL-08/001+1610
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Recreation and Public Purposes Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825014?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALABAMA+AND+MISSISSIPPI+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=ALABAMA+AND+MISSISSIPPI+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, Jackson, Mississippi; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 2]
T2  - ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 756825003; 13560-080335_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Alabama and Mississippi. Within the two states, BLM administers 333 acres of public land surface and mineral e state and 704,850 acres of subsurface federal mineral estate over which the surface land is in non-federal ownership. BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by other federal agencies, excepting the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). BLM has the responsibility for lease issuance and post-lease administration of 1.64 million acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by the USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage since the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct leasing analysis to make land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing; this legal requirement does not apply to other federal surface management agencies. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, BLM would retain specific BLM-administered surface tracts, but would investigate opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies or organizations. In addition to management of fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 760,452 acres. Approximately 365 acres of habitat for the federally protected Alabama beach mouse would be closed to leasing. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would allow for disposal of all BLM-administered surface tracts, excepting the Hancock County tract in Mississippi. Some use restrictions would apply to certain tracts even after disposal. Management approaches would be taken regarding fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources would parallel those of Alternative 2; however, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Approximately 760,570 acres of non-USFS land would be open to oil and gas leasing Alternative 4 would also make all BLM-administered tracts available for disposal, with no specific conditions on use following sale. Otherwise, management stipulations would match those of Alternative 3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a coordinated approach to land and resources management, particularly with respect to oil and natural gas leasing, Stipulations to protect estuarine marsh ecosystem would support the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System. Removal of exotic invasive species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the federally protected tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Anticipated levels of oil and gas lease development (10 wells) would affect vegetation and soils and the associated terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat on 55 acres. Management activities on the Hancock County tract, including prescribed fire, could result in the loss of vegetation and soil erosion. Mineral leasing activities could also result in damage to cultural resource sites. Lease stipulations would increase minerals exploration and development costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Recreation and Public Purposes Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070372D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080335, 587 pages, August 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/ES/PL-08/001+1610
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Recreation and Public Purposes Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825003?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-16&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, Jackson, Mississippi; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 16370911; 13557
AB  - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 15-mile section of Interstate 90 (I-90), known as the Snoqualmie Pass East Project, in Kittitas County, Washington within the Wenatcheee National Forest is proposed. The study area begins on the western side of Snoqualmie Pass at milepost 55.1 in Hyak and ends at milepost 70.3 in Easton. I-90 is vital to the state's economy due its status as the main east-west transportation corridor across Washington. I-90 connects Puget Sound's deep-water ports, lager population centers, and retail and service businesses with the farmlands, industries, and extensive outdoor recreational areas of eastern Washington. The 15-mile study corridor is part of the 100-mile designated scenic byway called the Mounts to Sound Greenway. The Greenway is one of three designated scenic byways in Washington, and it was the first interstate in the country to be designated as a National Scenic Byway. The Wenatcheee National Forest provides recreational experiences to over 5.0 million visitors per year and is nee of the nation's top six most visited national forests. This section of I-90 has been plagued by avalanches, unstable slopes, deteriorating pavement, high traffic volumes, and a high accident rate. In addition to the proposed actions, known as the Common Route Alternatives, of which there are four, this final EIS addresses the No-Build Alternative. The proposed action would provide improvements along Keechelus Lake to remove or reduce the need for avalanche control work; stabilize slopes to reduce the risk of falling rock and debris; replace damaged pavement; expand I-90 from four lanes to six lanes to accommodate increases in traffic volume; and improve habitat connections for fish and wildlife. In addition, the Common Route Alternatives would improve curves in specific areas of the corridor. Low-clearance bridges would be removed and replaced with bridges that accommodate large trucks. Four alignment alternatives would be considered at Keechelus Lake, including the use of two 1.9-mile tunnels, two 0.6-mile tunnels, a westbound only tunnel, or a shoreline alignment, both directions of traffic moving along the lake around Slide Curve. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred action would reduce the risks of avalanche to the traveling public and eliminate Road closures required for avalanche control work; reduce the risk of rock and debris falling onto the roadway from unstable slopes; fix structural deficiencies by replacing damaged pavement, provide for the growth-related increases in traffic volume, and connect habitats across I-90 for fish and wildlife. Stream channel function in the Gold Creek, Swamp Creek, Toll Creek, Hudson Creek, and Price/Noble Creek areas would improve. Stormwater pollutant loading in Keechelus Lake would decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would disturb soils, displace wetlands, fish and aquatic habitat, terrestrial habitat, riparian habitat, mature forest, recreational resources, LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0640D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080332, Record of Decision--25 pages, 11 pages, CD-ROMs (2, August 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Roads and Railroads
KW  - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-F
KW  - Biologic Assessments
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources Surveys
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Lakes
KW  - Noise Assessments
KW  - Recreation Facilities
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Section 4(f) Statements
KW  - Section 6(f) Statements
KW  - Section 404(b) Statements
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Washington
KW  - Wenatcheee National Forest
KW  - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370911?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AN  - 16368883; 13560
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Alabama and Mississippi. Within the two states, BLM administers 333 acres of public land surface and mineral e state and 704,850 acres of subsurface federal mineral estate over which the surface land is in non-federal ownership. BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by other federal agencies, excepting the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). BLM has the responsibility for lease issuance and post-lease administration of 1.64 million acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by the USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage since the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct leasing analysis to make land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing; this legal requirement does not apply to other federal surface management agencies. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, BLM would retain specific BLM-administered surface tracts, but would investigate opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies or organizations. In addition to management of fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 760,452 acres. Approximately 365 acres of habitat for the federally protected Alabama beach mouse would be closed to leasing. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would allow for disposal of all BLM-administered surface tracts, excepting the Hancock County tract in Mississippi. Some use restrictions would apply to certain tracts even after disposal. Management approaches would be taken regarding fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources would parallel those of Alternative 2; however, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Approximately 760,570 acres of non-USFS land would be open to oil and gas leasing Alternative 4 would also make all BLM-administered tracts available for disposal, with no specific conditions on use following sale. Otherwise, management stipulations would match those of Alternative 3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a coordinated approach to land and resources management, particularly with respect to oil and natural gas leasing, Stipulations to protect estuarine marsh ecosystem would support the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System. Removal of exotic invasive species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the federally protected tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Anticipated levels of oil and gas lease development (10 wells) would affect vegetation and soils and the associated terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat on 55 acres. Management activities on the Hancock County tract, including prescribed fire, could result in the loss of vegetation and soil erosion. Mineral leasing activities could also result in damage to cultural resource sites. Lease stipulations would increase minerals exploration and development costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and Recreation and Public Purposes Act. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see epa=070372D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080335, 587 pages, August 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/ES/PL-08/001+1610
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Soils Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Alabama
KW  - Mississippi
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987, Compliance
KW  - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Recreation and Public Purposes Act, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368883?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALABAMA+AND+MISSISSIPPI+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=ALABAMA+AND+MISSISSIPPI+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, Jackson, Mississippi; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRICE FIELD OFFICE, UTAH.
AN  - 16381684; 13553
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general resource management plan for public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management's Price Field Office (PFO) in Carbon and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. The PFO lands encompass 2.5 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral resources. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to air quality; soil, water, riparian, and vegetation resources, cultural resources and paleontological resources, visual resources, fish and wildlife habitat, wild horse and burros management, fire and fuels management, forest and woodland resources, livestock grazing, recreation resources, off-highway vehicle use, lands and realty, mineral and energy development, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and wild and scenic river corridors. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would provide for a variety of resource needs throughout the PFO area. The alternative would maximize minerals development potential in the areas with the greatest potential for development and target recreational management in areas with the highest potential for recreational development. Approximately 75 oil and gas wells would be allowed per year on a total of 1.18 million acres under standard lease terms. Controlled surface use for oil and gas development would be allowed on 574,000 acres and no-occupancy surface use on 574,000 acres. Surface occupancy would be prohibited on 149,000 acres, and 584,000 acres would be closed to leasing. Two additional areas of critical concern would be added, bringing the total to 15 areas encompassing 461,000 acres. Protective management would be implemented for 123 miles of scenic river and 100 miles of recreational river. Special recreation management would be undertaken on 2,770 acres in the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, 225,00 acres in Desolation Canyon, 38,000 acres in Labyrinth Canyon, 936,000 acres in San Rafael Swell, and 32,000 acres in Nine Mile Canyon. Two supplements were published following the publication of the July 1984 draft EIS. The first supplement covered the possible addition of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and the second dealt with management of nonwilderness areas exhibiting wilderness characteristics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would provide for appropriate development of the oil and gas resources within the PFO area, as well as a diversity of recreational opportunities. Rare landscapes and resources would be protected and preserved for future generations, and research would provide further knowledge regarding the ecological processes governing the area. Oil and gas produced under the plan would reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and liquid natural gas. Mineral development activities would employ local workers and workers from outside the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development activities would result in significant surface disturbance, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat as well as erosion and sedimentation of surface flows. Air pollutants would be released by machinery and equipment used to extract oil and gas, and the visual quality and recreational experience within the affected areas would be degraded significantly. Archaeological and paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by development of well pads and the associated pipeline and Road infrastructure. 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 05-0070D, Volume 29, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080328, Volume 2--244 pages (Volumes 1 & 3 unavailable), CD-ROM, August 20, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-29
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Employment
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Hydrologic Assessments
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Research
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
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/16381684?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-16&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, Price, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, VERNAL FIELD OFFICE, VERNAL, UTAH.
AN  - 16374829; 13541
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the general resource management plan (RMP) for public lands administered by the Vernal Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Utah is proposed. The revised plan would integrate the Diamond Mountain and Book Cliffs RMPs into a single new plan to be known as the Vernal Field Office RMP. The revised plan would provide planning guidance for public land and federal mineral estate managed by the Vernal Office in Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties in northeastern Utah, as well as a small portion of Grand County. The planning areas include the south slope of the Uinta Mountains, the Uinta Basin, and the Book Cliffs region; the BLM manages approximately 30 percent of the land within the area. The current RMPs are outdated and incompatible with resource management needs in the area due to population growth, increased resource development and use, and public concerns regarding environmental degradation and recreational resource uses. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in the final EIS of January 2005. The alternatives provide management recommendations to guide the multiple-use management of all resources within the area. Areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), suitable wild and scenic river segments, and special recreation management areas are also recommended. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would provide primarily for oil and gas and coal-bed methane leasing, designate 10 ACECs, recommend two sections of river for inclusion in the national system of wild and scenic rivers, and designate areas for off-highway vehicle use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. The non-WSAs lands identified as having characteristics rendering them suitable for consideration, along with the designated WSA, for inclusion in the National Wilderness System would be protected from encroachment as if they were WSAs and could, in the future, be designated as WSAs and, perhaps, wilderness areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation development and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. Management of the non-WSAs as WSAs would remove the affected areas from exploitative uses and the development of recreational facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, 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 EIS and a supplement to the draft, see 05-0340D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 07-0441D, Volume 31, Number 4, respectively.
JF  - EPA number: 080316, Volume 1--177 pages and maps, Volume 2--626 pages, Volume 3--513 pages, Volume 4--277 pages, CD-ROM, August 18, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Hazardous Materials
KW  - Historic Sites Surveys
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soil Conservation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Utah
KW  - Vernal Resource Management Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, Compliance
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374829?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VERNAL+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+VERNAL%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VERNAL+FIELD+OFFICE%2C+VERNAL%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KEMMERER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LINCOLN, SWEETWATER, AND UNITA COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 16376485; 13549
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resources management plan (RMP) for the 3.9-million-acre Kemmerer Resource Management Area of Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta counties, Wyoming is proposed. Within the planning area, which is currently administered by a 1986 RMP, the Bureau of Land Management administers 1.4 million acres of public surface and 1.6 million acres of federal mineral estate. The 1986 RMP has undergone more than 30 maintenance actions, including updates and amendments, and is in need of revision. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and mineral resources, vegetation and habitat management, special area designations, and land ownership adjustments, access, and transportation. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Areas addressed specifically by all management alternatives include air, soil, and water quality; mineral resources, including oil and natural gas; fire and fuels management; vegetation; fish and wildlife habitat; special status species; invasive plants; cultural resources, primarily involving historic trails; Native American resources; paleontological resources; lands and realty; recreation and travel management; areas of critical environmental concern; wild and scenic river segments; wilderness study areas; and socioeconomic resources. Alternative B would emphasize conservation of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the lowest level of development. Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while providing for the lowest level of conservation of physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize a moderate level of protection for physical, biological, and heritage resources, while placing moderate constraints on exploitative resource uses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a balanced approach to resource management that would address the key issues identified, related management concerns, and the needs of local communities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbances resulting from exploitative, recreational, and management activities, such as the construction of well pads and roads, pits and reservoirs, pipelines and powerlines, mining and mineral processing, and vegetation treatments, off-highway vehicle use, and fire and fuels management, would result in destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, disturbance of soils, and exacerbation of sediment levels in surface water flows. Such activities would also degrade visual aesthetics by changing the landscape and placing structural improvements in otherwise pristine scenic areas. Prescribed fire, largely for fuels management, would degrade local air quality during and immediately following burns. Protective measures addressing some resources, particularly natural and heritage resources, would restrict exploitative uses of economic resources, such as oil and gas deposits. 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 07-0256D, Volume 31, Number 2.
JF  - EPA number: 080324, Final EIS--707 pages, Appendices--348 pages, CD-ROM, August 15, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-08/023+1610
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Economic Assessments
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Indian Reservations
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Kemmerer Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376485?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KEMMERER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LINCOLN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+AND+UNITA+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=KEMMERER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LINCOLN%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+AND+UNITA+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PINEDALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SUBLETTE AND LINCOLN COUNTIES, WYOMING.
AN  - 16386663; 13543
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised resource management plan for the Pinedale Resource Management Area of Sublette and Lincoln counties, Wyoming is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management administers 922,880 acres of public land surface and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estates within the management area. The current management plan was established in December 1988 and changes within the planning area and changing needs of users of the area demand an alternation in management directions for many of the affected resources. Planning issues identified during scoping include those related to the development of energy resources and minerals-related developments, adjustment of land tenure, vegetation management, cultural resources and paleontological resources management, travel management (including off-highway vehicle use), wildland/urban interfaces, special status species management, water quality, special management area designations, and wildlife habitat, with particular attention to the federally protected greater sage grouse. Key management areas addressed in the plan would include motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities, leasing and development of mineral resources, livestock grazing, and other land use activities. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would optimize the protection of oil and gas resources wile providing an appropriate level of environmental protection for all competing resources. Land allocations and areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing would be designated. Approximately 1.0 million acres would be open for oil and gas leasing and development. Four categories would be established with regard to the intensity of development in various areas allocated for oil and gas development. Transportation planning would be implemented in all areas to reduce Road density, duplication of routes, and unnecessary routes. Approximately 13,770 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and land disposal; these closed areas include the New Fork Potholes and Trapper's Point acres of critical environmental concern (ACECs), CCC Ponds Special Resource Management Area, East Fork Wild and Scenic River corridor, and several sensitive cultural sites. Oil and gas development facilities and ancillary facilities would be prohibited in areas, particularly trail corridors, where visual resources would be degraded in areas prized for their scenic value. The Rock Creek and Beaver Creek ACECs would be retained. New ACECs would be designated in the Trapper's Point and New Fork Potholes areas (5,980 acres). The Miller Mountain, Ross Butte, and Wind River Front Management Areas would be established (303,350 acres). Four river units would be managed as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, namely East Fork, Scab Creek, Silver Creek, and the upper Green River; these corridors encompass a total of 10.400 acres. Specific management guidance would be provided with respect to air quality, cultural resources, timber and other forest products and uses, lands and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, paleontology and natural history, recreation, vegetation, visual resources, watershed and water quality, wild horses, wildland fire and fuels, wildlife and fish habitat, and special management areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would adjust management decisions, objectives, and goals to address new information and changed circumstances. The plan would ensure the sustainability of important resources in the management area, including critical big game habitat and other wildlife habitat, air and water quality, scenic views, healthy vegetative cover, and soil stability, while providing for resource uses, such as motorized and nonmotorized recreational activities, livestock grazing and range improvement activities, mineral exploration and development, and new economic development activities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative and administrative actions, particularly those related to oil and gas 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, such as power transmission rights-of-way development, within the area. Such disturbances would degrade recreational values within the area, particularly those related to pristine wilderness values. 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 07-0061D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080318, Volume 1--545 pages, Volume 2--288 pages, August 14, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM\WY\PL-08/026+1610
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Roads
KW  - Scenic Areas
KW  - Socioeconomic Assessments
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Urban Development
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Pinedale Resource Management Area
KW  - Wyoming
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/16386663?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PINEDALE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SUBLETTE+AND+LINCOLN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=PINEDALE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SUBLETTE+AND+LINCOLN+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale, Wyoming; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 14, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA.
AN  - 16374288; 13544
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, install an approach lighting system, repair and improve the airport seawall, and acquire additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This draft EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives are considered for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). The preferred alternative is identified for each type of improvement. 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: The project would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the Sitka Sound, violating the guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Sitka Coastal Management Program. The area of placement is affected by coastal flooding, and the displacement of open water would displace floodwater storage capacity. The new seaplane pullout would also damage coastal values. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 622 linear feet of shoreline and 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 seafloor. 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.).
JF  - EPA number: 080319, 778 pages, August 14, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Airports
KW  - Birds
KW  - Coastal Zones
KW  - Flood Hazards
KW  - Hazardous Wastes
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - Islands
KW  - Military Facilities (Coast Guard)
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
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/16374288?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; DOT
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 14, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - RICHFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GARFIELD, PIUTE, SANPETE, SEVIER, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 754904673; 14430
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 5.4-million-acre Richfield Resource Management Area (RMA), Garfield, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne counties, Utah is proposed. The RMA extends over 21,200 acres in Kane County as well. Within the RMA, 2.1 million acres of public land and 95,000 subsurface acres under land owned by the state or private parties are managed by the Richfield Office of the Bureau of Land Management. The area is currently managed under RMPs and management framework plans dating from 1977 to 1991. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to transportation and public access; special management area designations, including designations for areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC), wilderness areas, and wild and scenic rivers; management of non-wilderness study areas (WSAs) with wilderness characteristics; management of recreational uses while protecting cultural and natural resource values; designation of area available for mineral development and restrictions on means of development; designation and management of livestock grazing areas; protection of natural resources such as vegetation, soils, and wildlife; utilization of fire as a management tool and re-establishment of a natural fire regime; and land acquisition, disposal, and withdrawal. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative N), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative makes specific stipulations and/or acreage allotments regarding the following management areas: air quality, soil resources, water resources, vegetation, cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, special status species, fish and wildlife, wild horses and burros, fire and fuels management, non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, forestry and woodland products, livestock grazing, recreation resources, travel management, lands and realty, mineral resources and energy, and the designation of WSAs, wild and scenic river corridors, and ACECs. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would manage the land and resources relying primarily on existing laws, regulations, and policy, applying special designations and restrictive management prescriptions only where necessary to protect threatened or otherwise important resources. This alternative would eliminate overlapping WSA/ACEC designations; designate two ACECs, encompassing a total of 2,530 acres; recommend two river segments, namely Dirty Devil and Fremont Gorge, extending a total of 59 miles, for protection as wild and scenic river; and designate five special recreation management areas, encompassing 838,7000 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would establish a management regime that would balance protection and conservation of public lands and resources against the need to provide for commodity production and mineral extraction. Restrictive management prescriptions and special designations would protect threatened or otherwise important resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Economically exploitative and recreational uses of the area, particularly mineral extraction and livestock grazing, and some management measures would affect air and water quality, disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, result in sedimentation of streams supporting fish habitat, alter natural fire regimes, disturb cultural resource and paleontological sites, mar visual aesthetics, and/or degrade wilderness values. 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 07-0447D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080301, Volume 1--351 pages and maps, Volume 2-670 pages and maps, Appendices--277 pages and maps, July 30, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-008-1610
KW  - Air Quality
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Coal
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fires
KW  - Fish
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Soils
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Resources Management
KW  - Water Resources Surveys
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Richfield Resource Management Area
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/754904673?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.title=REVISIONS+TO+THE+PERMANENT+PROGRAM+REGULATIONS+IMPLEMENTING+THE+SURFACE+MINING+CONTROL+AND+RECLAMATION+ACT+OF+1977+CONCERNING+THE+CREATION+AND+DISPOSAL+OF+EXCESS+SPOIL+AND+COAL+MINE+WASTE+AND+STREAM+BUFFER+ZONES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Richfield, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AGUA FRIA NATIJONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - AGUA FRIA NATIJONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA.
AN  - 873129288; 14429-0_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the 70,900-acre Agua Fria National Monument (AFNM) in Yavapai County and the 895,9101-acre Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area in Maricopa, Yavapai, and La Paz counties, Arizona is proposed. The two management areas lie adjacent to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Including the non-federal lands in the area, the two planning areas encompass 3.0 million acres in a complex mosaic of land ownerships and jurisdictions. In addition to extensive mineral estate, the areas contain rich archaeological resources and artifacts of types found nowhere else on earth, providing insights into the lifestyles of peoples who first settled this region on the Southwest. The lands are also home to pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, black bear, javelina, songbirds, migratory waterfowl, and numerous endangered and special-status species. Vegetation throughout the area ranges from Creosote in the desert flats to ponderosa pine at higher elevations. The varied panorama of mountains, mesas, grasslands, and high- and low-desert vistas provides many thousands of residents and visitors each year with unparalleled recreational opportunities, while many more rely on these lands for mining, grazing, and tourist trade. Expansion of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area will undoubtedly place stress on these resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation and public access, special area designations, wilderness characteristics, land and realty, rangeland management, cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources, fire management, wildlife and fisheries management, mineral resources, water resources, hazardous materials and solid waste, special areas designations, wilderness, wildlife and fish habitat, and air quality. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this final EIS. Management categories addressed by the action alternatives include land tenure, including purchase, sale, and exchange real estate; areas of critical environmental concern; congressionally designated wilderness areas; lands allocated to maintain of enhance wilderness values; special recreation management areas and recreation management zones, and areas protected by mineral withdrawals or closures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The unique and fragile ecological and cultural resources encompassed by planning area boundaries would receive extraordinary protection against damage by exploitative users and recreationists, while access would be provided for extraction of minerals where appropriate and for the purposes of researchers and recreationists. Progressively larger closures to mineral development would be particularly central to the goal of preserving cultural, ecological, and visual resources within the planning area, including areas protected and to be protected as designated wilderness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Limitations of recreational and mineral exploitation access would decrease the economic and social benefits that could be retrieved from the area. Increased visitation and allowable mineral extraction and other commercial exploitative activities would place stress on all natural and cultural resources within the planning area. Some management activities would disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, as well as affecting surface and subsurface flows. 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 06-0110D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080300, Final EIS (Volume 1)--339 pages, Final EIS (Volume 1--Chapter 5)--223 pages, Final EIS (Volume 2)--340 pages, Appendix--227 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, July 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-05/007
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Agua Fria National Monument
KW  - Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129288?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AGUA FRIA NATIJONAL MONUMENT AND BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHOENIX, ARIZONA.
AN  - 754904936; 14429
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan for the 70,900-acre Agua Fria National Monument (AFNM) in Yavapai County and the 895,9101-acre Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area in Maricopa, Yavapai, and La Paz counties, Arizona is proposed. The two management areas lie adjacent to the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Including the non-federal lands in the area, the two planning areas encompass 3.0 million acres in a complex mosaic of land ownerships and jurisdictions. In addition to extensive mineral estate, the areas contain rich archaeological resources and artifacts of types found nowhere else on earth, providing insights into the lifestyles of peoples who first settled this region on the Southwest. The lands are also home to pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, black bear, javelina, songbirds, migratory waterfowl, and numerous endangered and special-status species. Vegetation throughout the area ranges from Creosote in the desert flats to ponderosa pine at higher elevations. The varied panorama of mountains, mesas, grasslands, and high- and low-desert vistas provides many thousands of residents and visitors each year with unparalleled recreational opportunities, while many more rely on these lands for mining, grazing, and tourist trade. Expansion of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area will undoubtedly place stress on these resources. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation and public access, special area designations, wilderness characteristics, land and realty, rangeland management, cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources, fire management, wildlife and fisheries management, mineral resources, water resources, hazardous materials and solid waste, special areas designations, wilderness, wildlife and fish habitat, and air quality. Five alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management scheme, are considered in this final EIS. Management categories addressed by the action alternatives include land tenure, including purchase, sale, and exchange real estate; areas of critical environmental concern; congressionally designated wilderness areas; lands allocated to maintain of enhance wilderness values; special recreation management areas and recreation management zones, and areas protected by mineral withdrawals or closures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The unique and fragile ecological and cultural resources encompassed by planning area boundaries would receive extraordinary protection against damage by exploitative users and recreationists, while access would be provided for extraction of minerals where appropriate and for the purposes of researchers and recreationists. Progressively larger closures to mineral development would be particularly central to the goal of preserving cultural, ecological, and visual resources within the planning area, including areas protected and to be protected as designated wilderness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Limitations of recreational and mineral exploitation access would decrease the economic and social benefits that could be retrieved from the area. Increased visitation and allowable mineral extraction and other commercial exploitative activities would place stress on all natural and cultural resources within the planning area. Some management activities would disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, as well as affecting surface and subsurface flows. 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 06-0110D, Volume 30, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080300, Final EIS (Volume 1)--339 pages, Final EIS (Volume 1--Chapter 5)--223 pages, Final EIS (Volume 2)--340 pages, Appendix--227 pages, Map Supplement, CD-ROM, July 29, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-05/007
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Birds
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fire Control
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Mineral Resources
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Arizona
KW  - Agua Fria National Monument
KW  - Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754904936?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AGUA+FRIA+NATIJONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PHOENIX%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=AGUA+FRIA+NATIJONAL+MONUMENT+AND+BRADSHAW-HARQUAHALA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PHOENIX%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 - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 29, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - LAKE CASITAS GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 754906714; 14426
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 draft 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 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 would could result in major user conflicts. Conflicts on trails between recreationists and other users with different intentions 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 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: 080297, 161 pages and maps, July 28, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-28
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  - 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/754906714?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-28&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, South Central California Office; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 28, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - COTTONWOOD RESOURCE MANAEGMENT PLAN, LATAH, NEZ PERCE, LEWIS, IDAHO, AND ADAMS COUNTIES, IDAHO.
AN  - 754904946; 14427
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general resource management plan (RMP) for the Cottonwood Resource Management Area of Latah, Nez Perce, Lewis, Idaho, and Adams counties, Idaho is proposed. The 8.8-million-acre planning area lies in north-central Idaho; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 1.6 percent (143,830 acres) within the area's boundaries, but approximately 65 percent of the area is administered under federal authority via different agencies. Management direction and actions outlined in the RMP apply only to BLM-managed public lands in the planning area and to approximately 84,000 acres of additional federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie beneath non-BLM surface control. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to invasive plant species, forest vegetation, special status species and habitats, priority watersheds or areas for conservation and/or restoration strategies, motorized and nonmotorized travel, levels of commercial uses (forest products, minerals, livestock grazing, and recreation), fuels reduction, land ownership adjustments, and existing and future recreation demand. In addition, the alternatives under consideration would address areas for critical environmental concern (ACECs) and the eligibility and suitability of river segments for designation as portions of 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. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would manage special status species with an emphasis on maintaining and improving habitat; treat fuels on 40 percent of the managed planning area; offer 3.1 million board-feet of saw timber per year from the commercial harvest base of 40,598, resulting in harvest on 242 acres annually; protect high-value resources through land withdrawals and conservation easements; implement an aquatic and riparian management strategy; address fishery and riparian resource needs in 32 designated restoration watersheds and one conservation watershed, to protect a total of 64,481 acres; manage 22,847 acres within designated riparian conservation area buffers; apply desired future condition standards on 28,789 acres; designate 6,200 acres for primitive recreation, 36,495 acres for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation, 23,593 acres for semi-primitive motorized recreation, 54,867 acres for roaded natural recreation, 22,478 acres for rural recreation, and 40 acres for urban recreation uses; implement intensive special resource management measures on the 16,245-acre Salmon River Scenic Area, 6,899-acre Salmon River Recreational Area; 3,583 acres within the Clearwater River corridor, 3,635 acres within the Lolo Creek corridor 24,884 acres within the Craig Mountain Wildlife Management Area; prohibit cross-country use of motorized vehicles; creation or expansion of five ACECs encompassing 32,562 acres; maintenance of reduction in size of six existing ACECs/Research Natural Areas reducing these areas by 1,966 acres; and recommend four river segments (29.34 miles) for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would emphasize a balanced level of protection, restoration, and commodity production to meet the need for resource protection and resource use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, such as prescribed burning, road work, and mechanical vegetation management, and exploitative activities, such as timber harvest, mining, and oil and gas resource development would destroy vegetation, disturb and/or contaminate soils, and degrade water quality in streams and other surface waters in affected watersheds. Wildlife and fish habitat affected by invasive management and exploitative activities would also suffer degradation. Archaeological sites and other heritage resources, including resources of importance to Native Americans, could be disturbed or destroyed incidentally. 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 06-0538D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080298, Volume I--623 pages, Volume II--644 pages, Volume III--625 pages, July 28, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: ID-420-2005-EIS-1058
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Burning (Prescribed)
KW  - Conservation
KW  - Creeks
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Easements
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Fire Prevention
KW  - Fish
KW  - Forests
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Mining
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Plant Control
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Ranges Surveys
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Research
KW  - Roads
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Timber
KW  - Timber Management
KW  - Transportation
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Vegetation Surveys
KW  - Watersheds
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Cottonwood Resource Management Area
KW  - Idaho
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/754904946?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WESTERN+UNITED+STATES%2C+ALASKA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+OREGON%2C+UTAH%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cottonwood, Idaho; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MILLERTON LAKE GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 754905096; 14421
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 draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would emphasize expanded recreation. The concept of this alternative would focus on the expansion of recreation facilities to include the highwest 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 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. Speed limits and sues of personal watercraft would be more restrictive than those allowed under Alternative 1. 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 boating 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 interruption 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: 080292, 203 pages and maps, July 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-29
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/754905096?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-25&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, South Central California Office; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - CACHUMA LAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
AN  - 754905063; 14422
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, a 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 considered in this draft 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. 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 with different intentions 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 during burns. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, Reclamation Act of 1902, and Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1939.
JF  - EPA number: 080293, 267 pages and maps, July 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Water
KW  - Agency number: DES 08-27
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  - 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/754905063?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, South Central California Office; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2010-08-20
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36411782; 13519
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36411782?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36395094; 13519-080287_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36395094?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36394083; 13519-080287_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36394083?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36387219; 13519-080287_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36387219?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36384751; 13519-080287_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36384751?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36384055; 13519-080287_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36384055?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=MOAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - MOAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36383793; 13519-080287_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The revision of the resource management plan (RMP) directing management and use within the 2.75-million-acre Moab planning area in Grand and San Juan counties of southeastern Utah is proposed. Within the Moab area, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers approximately 1.8 million acres of federal land surface as well as 29,000 acres of federal mineral estate. The planning area is situated in the canyon, plateau, and desert areas of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Region. The current RMP was established in 1980 and does not properly address the needs presented by new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing circumstances. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to recreation use and off-highway vehicles (OHV), minerals, special area and wild and scenic river designations, ecosystem resources, livestock management, riparian and wetland areas, cultural and paleontological resources, land tenure adjustments and withdrawals, fire management, and areas with wilderness characteristics that have not been designated as wilderness study areas (WSAs). Four 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) would emphasize protection of important natural resources as well as commodity production and a full range of recreational opportunities, under the general principle of multiple-use, sustained yield management. Under Alternative C, 1866 acres would be open too cross-country OHV use, 339,298 acres would be closed, and OHV use would be limited to designated routes on the remainder of the planning area. Approximately 2,642 miles of travel routes (including motorcycle trails) would be designated. Ten Special Recreation Management Areas would be designated, and 30 Focus Areas for both motorized and non-motorized recreation would be established. Five areas of critical environmental concern would be designated, and 10 segments of three eligible rivers would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. Three areas, encompassing 47,761 acres of non-WSA lands, would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Approximately 370,250 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Approximately 217,480 acres would be managed for oil and gas leasing and development under no surface occupancy stipulations. The remaining 806,994 acres would e managed with timing limitations or controlled surface use stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revised plan would coordinate the management of the integrated planning area with other land management agencies, including the state of Utah, the Ute Indian Tribe, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, affected county governments, municipalities, and private entities. The integrated area would be managed to provide development opportunities, while protecting sensitive resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Management activities, range uses, mineral lease developments, other management activities, and recreation developments and uses would affect air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, livestock grazing allotments, fire management, volumes of hazardous materials in the area, access to mineral resources, visual and other recreational resources, riparian zones, socioeconomic conditions, soil and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat (including habitat for special status species), and vegetation. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 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 07-0351D, Volume 31, Number 3.
JF  - EPA number: 080287, Volume 1--189 pages and maps, Volume 2--671, Volume 3--404 pages, July 22, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM-UT-PL-07-00401610
KW  - Climatologic Assessments
KW  - Cultural Resources Management
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Fires
KW  - Hydraulic Assessments
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Resources
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Recreation Resources Surveys
KW  - Rivers
KW  - Trails
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Moab Resource Management Area
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/36383793?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - AVALANCHE HAZARD REDUCTION BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1]
T2  - AVALANCHE HAZARD REDUCTION BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY IN GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA.
AN  - 36381545; 13517-080285_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The issuance of a special use permit for the implementation of an explosive avalanche hazard reduction plan by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in the Glacier National Park (GNP) and Flathead National Forest of Montana is proposed. Currently, BNSF employees, Amtrak passengers, freight, and equipment along the southern boundary of the GNP through John F. Stevens Canyon (between mileposts 1159 and 1164, are exposed to seasonal avalanche threats. Avalanches also cause delays with respect to commerce along the route. Historically the BNSF-constructed snowsheds in this area are the sole protection provided to trains using the route. Eight of the original nine snowsheds remain, but do not provide adequate avalanche protection. Explosive use for avalanche hazard reduction would constitute an unprecedented action in the GNP, and park authorities have serious concerns about impacts to park values, including winter wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, natural sound levels, and recommended wilderness study areas. However, the park concurs that there are avalanche hazard safety issues in the study area and agreed to consider BNSF's proposal as well as a range of alternatives. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness values, threatened and endangered species and other wildlife, avalanche risk to humans and trains, impacts of explosives on US Highway 2, use of explosives in the GNP, the incorporation of wildlife crossings into BNSF snowsheds, visitor safety and experience under a plan adopting explosives, scenic resource impacts, and socioeconomics. This final EIS addresses four explosive and non-explosive avalanche reduction alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would continue the current, largely passive, avalanche response measures. Alternative B, the preferred Alternative, would involve the construction by BNSF of snowsheds covering tracks to protect trains against avalanches. Five new snowsheds, extending a total of 3,540 feet, would be constructed to address the current situation, in which seven avalanche paths have grown wider than the area protected by the existing snowsheds. Seven existing snowsheds would be extended a total of 1,500 feet for full avalanche path protection. Avalanche forecasting, non-explosive stability testing, and railroad restrictions would be implemented to reduce avalanche hazard during snowshed conditions. A permit would be granted for emergency explosive use in the event that human lives or resources are at risk and all other options have been exercised by BNSF. Alternative C would permit limited use of explosives to reduce avalanche hazards for up to 10 years upon a commitment from BSNF to construct the recommended snowsheds. Alternative D, which is the BNF proposal, would use explosives, including military artillery, indefinitely in the park for avalanche reduction; this alternative would include the extension of two snowsheds. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative ranges from $2.0 million to $8.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide additional protection to the approximately 50 freight trains and two Amtrak trains that pass through the canyon each day. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowshed construction would disturb soil in already disturbed areas around the rail line. Natural avalanche processes could continue to occur, requiring that BNSF to use avalanche forecasting and hazard analysis to impose delays and restrictions while snowsheds were built. Snowshed work would degrade the historic value of the existing snowsheds. If train delays and restrictions were not implemented in a timely manner, the preferred alternative would engender a significant risk of hazardous material spills. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0564D, Volume 30, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080285, 111 pages, July 21, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Parks, Refuges and Forests
KW  - Agency number: FES 08-30
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Forests
KW  - Highways
KW  - Ice Environments
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Noise
KW  - Railroad Structures
KW  - Railroads
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Weather
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Flathead National Forest
KW  - Glacier National Park
KW  - Montana
KW  - Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381545?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, Montana; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 21, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36402934; 13510-080278_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 natural formed mountain lakes in the 684,00-acre North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex of Washington is proposed. The complex, which is located in northwestern Washington, with its northern boundary forming the international border with Canada, encompasses Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park, and Ross Lake NRA. Unauthorized fish stocking has taken place in many of the lakes since the settlement of the area. To be able to continue stocking in the light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986, which allows stocking of fish species native to the national park or to the ecological region. A preliminary agreement based on the memorandum and subsequent negotiations expired in December 2004. Since then, the NPS has decided to conduct fishery management in the complex under the Wilderness Act of 1964 an the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Generally, alternative measures available to the NPS include adaptive management, outreach and education, partnerships, mechanical lake treatment methods, chemical methods, and natural population control methods. Four 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 B) would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that 42 lakes ay have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from the lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking or nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The possible future outcome would be recreational fishing opportunities could occur in up to 42 lakes. Alternative C would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that that 11 NRA lakes may have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes and in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs. Fishless NRA lakes would be maintained as such. The possible outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes could have fish and 11 would be fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would render all 91 lakes fishless. The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 61 of the 91 lakes support fish populations; 29 lakes are fishless. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would return a number of lakes to their natural state or, at least, remove nonnative species of fish from the lake system. Native species would be allowed to repopulate naturally or artificially, returning the area to a more pristine ecosystem NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish kills and other methods of elimination lake fish populations would eliminate recreational and commercial fishing opportunities from the affected lakes. Toxins in chemicals used to kill fish and certain mechanical means of killing fish could result in the death of nontarget fish and nonfish species. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0687D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080278, Final EIS--545 pages, Appendices--577 pages, July 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Lakes
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
KW  - North Cascades National Park
KW  - North Cascades National Park Service Complex
KW  - Mountain Lakes
KW  - Ross Lake National Recreation Area
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36402934?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+LAKES+FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+LAKES+FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedra-Wooley, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36396273; 13510-080278_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 natural formed mountain lakes in the 684,00-acre North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex of Washington is proposed. The complex, which is located in northwestern Washington, with its northern boundary forming the international border with Canada, encompasses Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park, and Ross Lake NRA. Unauthorized fish stocking has taken place in many of the lakes since the settlement of the area. To be able to continue stocking in the light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986, which allows stocking of fish species native to the national park or to the ecological region. A preliminary agreement based on the memorandum and subsequent negotiations expired in December 2004. Since then, the NPS has decided to conduct fishery management in the complex under the Wilderness Act of 1964 an the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Generally, alternative measures available to the NPS include adaptive management, outreach and education, partnerships, mechanical lake treatment methods, chemical methods, and natural population control methods. Four 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 B) would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that 42 lakes ay have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from the lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking or nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The possible future outcome would be recreational fishing opportunities could occur in up to 42 lakes. Alternative C would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that that 11 NRA lakes may have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes and in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs. Fishless NRA lakes would be maintained as such. The possible outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes could have fish and 11 would be fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would render all 91 lakes fishless. The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 61 of the 91 lakes support fish populations; 29 lakes are fishless. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would return a number of lakes to their natural state or, at least, remove nonnative species of fish from the lake system. Native species would be allowed to repopulate naturally or artificially, returning the area to a more pristine ecosystem NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish kills and other methods of elimination lake fish populations would eliminate recreational and commercial fishing opportunities from the affected lakes. Toxins in chemicals used to kill fish and certain mechanical means of killing fish could result in the death of nontarget fish and nonfish species. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0687D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080278, Final EIS--545 pages, Appendices--577 pages, July 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Lakes
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
KW  - North Cascades National Park
KW  - North Cascades National Park Service Complex
KW  - Mountain Lakes
KW  - Ross Lake National Recreation Area
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36396273?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedra-Wooley, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36392352; 13510-080278_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 natural formed mountain lakes in the 684,00-acre North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex of Washington is proposed. The complex, which is located in northwestern Washington, with its northern boundary forming the international border with Canada, encompasses Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park, and Ross Lake NRA. Unauthorized fish stocking has taken place in many of the lakes since the settlement of the area. To be able to continue stocking in the light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986, which allows stocking of fish species native to the national park or to the ecological region. A preliminary agreement based on the memorandum and subsequent negotiations expired in December 2004. Since then, the NPS has decided to conduct fishery management in the complex under the Wilderness Act of 1964 an the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Generally, alternative measures available to the NPS include adaptive management, outreach and education, partnerships, mechanical lake treatment methods, chemical methods, and natural population control methods. Four 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 B) would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that 42 lakes ay have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from the lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking or nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The possible future outcome would be recreational fishing opportunities could occur in up to 42 lakes. Alternative C would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that that 11 NRA lakes may have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes and in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs. Fishless NRA lakes would be maintained as such. The possible outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes could have fish and 11 would be fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would render all 91 lakes fishless. The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 61 of the 91 lakes support fish populations; 29 lakes are fishless. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would return a number of lakes to their natural state or, at least, remove nonnative species of fish from the lake system. Native species would be allowed to repopulate naturally or artificially, returning the area to a more pristine ecosystem NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish kills and other methods of elimination lake fish populations would eliminate recreational and commercial fishing opportunities from the affected lakes. Toxins in chemicals used to kill fish and certain mechanical means of killing fish could result in the death of nontarget fish and nonfish species. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0687D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080278, Final EIS--545 pages, Appendices--577 pages, July 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Lakes
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
KW  - North Cascades National Park
KW  - North Cascades National Park Service Complex
KW  - Mountain Lakes
KW  - Ross Lake National Recreation Area
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392352?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedra-Wooley, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36387088; 13510-080278_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 natural formed mountain lakes in the 684,00-acre North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex of Washington is proposed. The complex, which is located in northwestern Washington, with its northern boundary forming the international border with Canada, encompasses Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park, and Ross Lake NRA. Unauthorized fish stocking has taken place in many of the lakes since the settlement of the area. To be able to continue stocking in the light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986, which allows stocking of fish species native to the national park or to the ecological region. A preliminary agreement based on the memorandum and subsequent negotiations expired in December 2004. Since then, the NPS has decided to conduct fishery management in the complex under the Wilderness Act of 1964 an the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Generally, alternative measures available to the NPS include adaptive management, outreach and education, partnerships, mechanical lake treatment methods, chemical methods, and natural population control methods. Four 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 B) would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that 42 lakes ay have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from the lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking or nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The possible future outcome would be recreational fishing opportunities could occur in up to 42 lakes. Alternative C would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that that 11 NRA lakes may have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes and in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs. Fishless NRA lakes would be maintained as such. The possible outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes could have fish and 11 would be fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would render all 91 lakes fishless. The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 61 of the 91 lakes support fish populations; 29 lakes are fishless. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would return a number of lakes to their natural state or, at least, remove nonnative species of fish from the lake system. Native species would be allowed to repopulate naturally or artificially, returning the area to a more pristine ecosystem NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish kills and other methods of elimination lake fish populations would eliminate recreational and commercial fishing opportunities from the affected lakes. Toxins in chemicals used to kill fish and certain mechanical means of killing fish could result in the death of nontarget fish and nonfish species. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0687D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080278, Final EIS--545 pages, Appendices--577 pages, July 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Lakes
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
KW  - North Cascades National Park
KW  - North Cascades National Park Service Complex
KW  - Mountain Lakes
KW  - Ross Lake National Recreation Area
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387088?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST-TO-NORTHEAST+RAIL+CORRIDOR%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+HALTOM+CITY%2C+NORTH+RICHLAND+HILLS%2C+COLLEYVILLE%2C+AND+GRAPEVINE+IN+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedra-Wooley, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36387022; 13510-080278_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 natural formed mountain lakes in the 684,00-acre North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex of Washington is proposed. The complex, which is located in northwestern Washington, with its northern boundary forming the international border with Canada, encompasses Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park, and Ross Lake NRA. Unauthorized fish stocking has taken place in many of the lakes since the settlement of the area. To be able to continue stocking in the light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986, which allows stocking of fish species native to the national park or to the ecological region. A preliminary agreement based on the memorandum and subsequent negotiations expired in December 2004. Since then, the NPS has decided to conduct fishery management in the complex under the Wilderness Act of 1964 an the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Generally, alternative measures available to the NPS include adaptive management, outreach and education, partnerships, mechanical lake treatment methods, chemical methods, and natural population control methods. Four 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 B) would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that 42 lakes ay have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from the lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking or nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The possible future outcome would be recreational fishing opportunities could occur in up to 42 lakes. Alternative C would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that that 11 NRA lakes may have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes and in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs. Fishless NRA lakes would be maintained as such. The possible outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes could have fish and 11 would be fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would render all 91 lakes fishless. The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 61 of the 91 lakes support fish populations; 29 lakes are fishless. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would return a number of lakes to their natural state or, at least, remove nonnative species of fish from the lake system. Native species would be allowed to repopulate naturally or artificially, returning the area to a more pristine ecosystem NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish kills and other methods of elimination lake fish populations would eliminate recreational and commercial fishing opportunities from the affected lakes. Toxins in chemicals used to kill fish and certain mechanical means of killing fish could result in the death of nontarget fish and nonfish species. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0687D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080278, Final EIS--545 pages, Appendices--577 pages, July 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Lakes
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
KW  - North Cascades National Park
KW  - North Cascades National Park Service Complex
KW  - Mountain Lakes
KW  - Ross Lake National Recreation Area
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387022?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+LAKES+FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+LAKES+FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedra-Wooley, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - MOUNTAIN LAKES FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON.
AN  - 36381665; 13510-080278_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a fishery management plan for 91 natural formed mountain lakes in the 684,00-acre North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex of Washington is proposed. The complex, which is located in northwestern Washington, with its northern boundary forming the international border with Canada, encompasses Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park, and Ross Lake NRA. Unauthorized fish stocking has taken place in many of the lakes since the settlement of the area. To be able to continue stocking in the light of NPS policies generally prohibiting it, a memorandum from the NPS Director was issued in 1986, which allows stocking of fish species native to the national park or to the ecological region. A preliminary agreement based on the memorandum and subsequent negotiations expired in December 2004. Since then, the NPS has decided to conduct fishery management in the complex under the Wilderness Act of 1964 an the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Generally, alternative measures available to the NPS include adaptive management, outreach and education, partnerships, mechanical lake treatment methods, chemical methods, and natural population control methods. Four 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 B) would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that 42 lakes ay have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from the lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes. After monitoring or evaluation, restocking or nonreproducing fish would be allowed in certain lakes only if impacts on biological resources could be minimized. Lakes that are currently fishless would remain fishless. The possible future outcome would be recreational fishing opportunities could occur in up to 42 lakes. Alternative C would implement an adaptive management program for the lakes under a new framework, with the assumption that that 11 NRA lakes may have fish. The management framework would eliminate high densities of reproducing fish populations from lakes while allowing low densities of reproducing and nonreproducing fish populations in selected lakes and in Ross Lake and Lake Chelan NRAs. Fishless NRA lakes would be maintained as such. The possible outcome would be that 11 NRA lakes could have fish and 11 would be fishless, and 69 national park lakes would either remain fishless or become fishless over time. Alternative D, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would render all 91 lakes fishless. The emphasis of this alternative would be to eliminate all fish from the mountain lakes in the study area. Currently, 61 of the 91 lakes support fish populations; 29 lakes are fishless. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would return a number of lakes to their natural state or, at least, remove nonnative species of fish from the lake system. Native species would be allowed to repopulate naturally or artificially, returning the area to a more pristine ecosystem NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish kills and other methods of elimination lake fish populations would eliminate recreational and commercial fishing opportunities from the affected lakes. Toxins in chemicals used to kill fish and certain mechanical means of killing fish could result in the death of nontarget fish and nonfish species. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0687D, Volume 29, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080278, Final EIS--545 pages, Appendices--577 pages, July 11, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Water
KW  - Chemicals
KW  - Cultural Resources Assessments
KW  - Fish
KW  - Fisheries Management
KW  - Lakes
KW  - National Parks
KW  - Pest Control
KW  - Pesticides
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Toxicity
KW  - Wildlife Surveys
KW  - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area
KW  - North Cascades National Park
KW  - North Cascades National Park Service Complex
KW  - Mountain Lakes
KW  - Ross Lake National Recreation Area
KW  - Washington
KW  - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance
KW  - Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988, Compliance
KW  - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381665?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+LAKES+FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+LAKES+FISHERY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedra-Wooley, Washington; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 4]
T2  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36401908; 13504-080271_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 2.85-million-acre Kanab Resource Management Area (RMA) in Kane and Garfield counties of south-central Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 554,000 acres within the Kanab RMA, which is situated within the Colorado Plateau and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains ecoregions. The Utah portion of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is administered by the BLM's Kanab office. When approved, the new RMP will replace the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony RMP, as well as the Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion management framework plans. Major drainages in the planning area include the North Fork of the Virgin River, Orderville Gulch, East Fork of the Virgin River, Kanab Creek, Sevier River, Birch Creek, and North Creek (Escalante River). Changing conditions in the RMA have resulted from changes in policy, resource conditions and the use of resources, and administrative boundaries. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness study areas (WSAs), lands not classified as wilderness study areas that exhibit wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, recreation resources, transportation management, minerals and energy resource exploitation, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Four 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 B) would open 263,4000 acres of public land to oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; open 156,7000 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints; open 58,100 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints; close 75,800 acres to oil and gas leasing; limit annual vegetation treatments to 22,300 acres, with special stipulations for pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine ecosystems; reallocate 48 animal unit months on the Water Canyon; combine the Lydia's Canyon Allotment with the Lydia Allotment; combine the Sawmill Allotment with the South Canyon Allotment; Apply protective management to 4,570 acres along seven river segments eligible for designation within the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, including 25 miles encompassing 4,570 acres of wild river corridor, five miles encompassing 960 acres of scenic river corridor, and three miles encompassing 780 acres of recreational river corridor; designate and manage the 3,800-acre Cottonwood Canyon ACEC; designate seven special research management areas, with 12 recreation management zones (RMZs) encompassing 125,800 acres, including three RMZs encompassing 21,700 acres for motorized uses, six RMZs encompassing 44,900 acres for non-motorized uses, and three RMZs encompassing 59,200 for both motorized and non-motorized uses; manage 1,100 acres for open cross-country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; close 28,900 acres to OHVs; limit OHV use to designated routes on 524,000 acres, with some seasonal and permanent route closures; manage 76,000 acres under visual resource management (VRM) Class I stipulations, 93,600 acres under VRM Class II stipulations, 211,500 acres under VRM Class III stipulations, and 172,900 acres under VRM IV stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By consolidating the management of the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony, Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion areas under one regime, the new RMP would coordinate activities across areas that are affected by numerous overlapping and interrelating conditions and exploitative and recreational uses. The updated management scheme would respond to considerable changes that have occurred within the planning area, resulting in the need for new or additional program direction in existing plans for some areas. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities to use and develop resources within the decision area while ensuring natural and cultural resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Economically exploitative and recreational uses of the area, particularly mineral extraction and livestock grazing, and some management measures would affect air and water quality, disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, result in sedimentation of streams supporting fish habitat, alter natural fire regimes, disturb cultural resource and paleontological sites, mar visual aesthetics, and/or degrade wilderness values. 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 07-0444D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080271, Final EIS--567 pages, Appendices--378 pages, July 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT/PL-08-002-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
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/36401908?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KANE+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=KANAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KANE+AND+GARFIELD+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, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 4]
T2  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36395344; 13504-080271_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 2.85-million-acre Kanab Resource Management Area (RMA) in Kane and Garfield counties of south-central Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 554,000 acres within the Kanab RMA, which is situated within the Colorado Plateau and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains ecoregions. The Utah portion of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is administered by the BLM's Kanab office. When approved, the new RMP will replace the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony RMP, as well as the Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion management framework plans. Major drainages in the planning area include the North Fork of the Virgin River, Orderville Gulch, East Fork of the Virgin River, Kanab Creek, Sevier River, Birch Creek, and North Creek (Escalante River). Changing conditions in the RMA have resulted from changes in policy, resource conditions and the use of resources, and administrative boundaries. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness study areas (WSAs), lands not classified as wilderness study areas that exhibit wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, recreation resources, transportation management, minerals and energy resource exploitation, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Four 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 B) would open 263,4000 acres of public land to oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; open 156,7000 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints; open 58,100 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints; close 75,800 acres to oil and gas leasing; limit annual vegetation treatments to 22,300 acres, with special stipulations for pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine ecosystems; reallocate 48 animal unit months on the Water Canyon; combine the Lydia's Canyon Allotment with the Lydia Allotment; combine the Sawmill Allotment with the South Canyon Allotment; Apply protective management to 4,570 acres along seven river segments eligible for designation within the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, including 25 miles encompassing 4,570 acres of wild river corridor, five miles encompassing 960 acres of scenic river corridor, and three miles encompassing 780 acres of recreational river corridor; designate and manage the 3,800-acre Cottonwood Canyon ACEC; designate seven special research management areas, with 12 recreation management zones (RMZs) encompassing 125,800 acres, including three RMZs encompassing 21,700 acres for motorized uses, six RMZs encompassing 44,900 acres for non-motorized uses, and three RMZs encompassing 59,200 for both motorized and non-motorized uses; manage 1,100 acres for open cross-country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; close 28,900 acres to OHVs; limit OHV use to designated routes on 524,000 acres, with some seasonal and permanent route closures; manage 76,000 acres under visual resource management (VRM) Class I stipulations, 93,600 acres under VRM Class II stipulations, 211,500 acres under VRM Class III stipulations, and 172,900 acres under VRM IV stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By consolidating the management of the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony, Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion areas under one regime, the new RMP would coordinate activities across areas that are affected by numerous overlapping and interrelating conditions and exploitative and recreational uses. The updated management scheme would respond to considerable changes that have occurred within the planning area, resulting in the need for new or additional program direction in existing plans for some areas. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities to use and develop resources within the decision area while ensuring natural and cultural resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Economically exploitative and recreational uses of the area, particularly mineral extraction and livestock grazing, and some management measures would affect air and water quality, disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, result in sedimentation of streams supporting fish habitat, alter natural fire regimes, disturb cultural resource and paleontological sites, mar visual aesthetics, and/or degrade wilderness values. 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 07-0444D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080271, Final EIS--567 pages, Appendices--378 pages, July 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT/PL-08-002-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
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/36395344?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KANE+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=KANAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KANE+AND+GARFIELD+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, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 4]
T2  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36394701; 13504-080271_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 2.85-million-acre Kanab Resource Management Area (RMA) in Kane and Garfield counties of south-central Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 554,000 acres within the Kanab RMA, which is situated within the Colorado Plateau and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains ecoregions. The Utah portion of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is administered by the BLM's Kanab office. When approved, the new RMP will replace the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony RMP, as well as the Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion management framework plans. Major drainages in the planning area include the North Fork of the Virgin River, Orderville Gulch, East Fork of the Virgin River, Kanab Creek, Sevier River, Birch Creek, and North Creek (Escalante River). Changing conditions in the RMA have resulted from changes in policy, resource conditions and the use of resources, and administrative boundaries. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness study areas (WSAs), lands not classified as wilderness study areas that exhibit wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, recreation resources, transportation management, minerals and energy resource exploitation, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Four 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 B) would open 263,4000 acres of public land to oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; open 156,7000 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints; open 58,100 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints; close 75,800 acres to oil and gas leasing; limit annual vegetation treatments to 22,300 acres, with special stipulations for pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine ecosystems; reallocate 48 animal unit months on the Water Canyon; combine the Lydia's Canyon Allotment with the Lydia Allotment; combine the Sawmill Allotment with the South Canyon Allotment; Apply protective management to 4,570 acres along seven river segments eligible for designation within the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, including 25 miles encompassing 4,570 acres of wild river corridor, five miles encompassing 960 acres of scenic river corridor, and three miles encompassing 780 acres of recreational river corridor; designate and manage the 3,800-acre Cottonwood Canyon ACEC; designate seven special research management areas, with 12 recreation management zones (RMZs) encompassing 125,800 acres, including three RMZs encompassing 21,700 acres for motorized uses, six RMZs encompassing 44,900 acres for non-motorized uses, and three RMZs encompassing 59,200 for both motorized and non-motorized uses; manage 1,100 acres for open cross-country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; close 28,900 acres to OHVs; limit OHV use to designated routes on 524,000 acres, with some seasonal and permanent route closures; manage 76,000 acres under visual resource management (VRM) Class I stipulations, 93,600 acres under VRM Class II stipulations, 211,500 acres under VRM Class III stipulations, and 172,900 acres under VRM IV stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By consolidating the management of the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony, Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion areas under one regime, the new RMP would coordinate activities across areas that are affected by numerous overlapping and interrelating conditions and exploitative and recreational uses. The updated management scheme would respond to considerable changes that have occurred within the planning area, resulting in the need for new or additional program direction in existing plans for some areas. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities to use and develop resources within the decision area while ensuring natural and cultural resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Economically exploitative and recreational uses of the area, particularly mineral extraction and livestock grazing, and some management measures would affect air and water quality, disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, result in sedimentation of streams supporting fish habitat, alter natural fire regimes, disturb cultural resource and paleontological sites, mar visual aesthetics, and/or degrade wilderness values. 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 07-0444D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080271, Final EIS--567 pages, Appendices--378 pages, July 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT/PL-08-002-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
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/36394701?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/
LA  - English
DB  - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection
N1  - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 4]
T2  - KANAB FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, KANE AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, UTAH.
AN  - 36391654; 13504-080271_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The implementation of a resource management plan (RMP) for the 2.85-million-acre Kanab Resource Management Area (RMA) in Kane and Garfield counties of south-central Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 554,000 acres within the Kanab RMA, which is situated within the Colorado Plateau and Wasatch and Uinta Mountains ecoregions. The Utah portion of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness is administered by the BLM's Kanab office. When approved, the new RMP will replace the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony RMP, as well as the Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion management framework plans. Major drainages in the planning area include the North Fork of the Virgin River, Orderville Gulch, East Fork of the Virgin River, Kanab Creek, Sevier River, Birch Creek, and North Creek (Escalante River). Changing conditions in the RMA have resulted from changes in policy, resource conditions and the use of resources, and administrative boundaries. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to wilderness study areas (WSAs), lands not classified as wilderness study areas that exhibit wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, recreation resources, transportation management, minerals and energy resource exploitation, and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Four 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 B) would open 263,4000 acres of public land to oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; open 156,7000 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints; open 58,100 acres to oil and gas leasing subject to major constraints; close 75,800 acres to oil and gas leasing; limit annual vegetation treatments to 22,300 acres, with special stipulations for pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine ecosystems; reallocate 48 animal unit months on the Water Canyon; combine the Lydia's Canyon Allotment with the Lydia Allotment; combine the Sawmill Allotment with the South Canyon Allotment; Apply protective management to 4,570 acres along seven river segments eligible for designation within the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, including 25 miles encompassing 4,570 acres of wild river corridor, five miles encompassing 960 acres of scenic river corridor, and three miles encompassing 780 acres of recreational river corridor; designate and manage the 3,800-acre Cottonwood Canyon ACEC; designate seven special research management areas, with 12 recreation management zones (RMZs) encompassing 125,800 acres, including three RMZs encompassing 21,700 acres for motorized uses, six RMZs encompassing 44,900 acres for non-motorized uses, and three RMZs encompassing 59,200 for both motorized and non-motorized uses; manage 1,100 acres for open cross-country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; close 28,900 acres to OHVs; limit OHV use to designated routes on 524,000 acres, with some seasonal and permanent route closures; manage 76,000 acres under visual resource management (VRM) Class I stipulations, 93,600 acres under VRM Class II stipulations, 211,500 acres under VRM Class III stipulations, and 172,900 acres under VRM IV stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By consolidating the management of the Beaver-Garfield-Antimony, Escalante, Paria, Vermillion, and Zion areas under one regime, the new RMP would coordinate activities across areas that are affected by numerous overlapping and interrelating conditions and exploitative and recreational uses. The updated management scheme would respond to considerable changes that have occurred within the planning area, resulting in the need for new or additional program direction in existing plans for some areas. The preferred alternative would provide opportunities to use and develop resources within the decision area while ensuring natural and cultural resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Economically exploitative and recreational uses of the area, particularly mineral extraction and livestock grazing, and some management measures would affect air and water quality, disturb soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, result in sedimentation of streams supporting fish habitat, alter natural fire regimes, disturb cultural resource and paleontological sites, mar visual aesthetics, and/or degrade wilderness values. 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 07-0444D, Volume 31, Number 4.
JF  - EPA number: 080271, Final EIS--567 pages, Appendices--378 pages, July 9, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Agency number: BLM/UT/PL-08-002-1610
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Management
KW  - Leasing
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Mineral Resources Management
KW  - Motor Vehicles
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Oil Production
KW  - Paleontological Sites
KW  - Property Disposition
KW  - Range Management
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Recreation Resources Management
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transportation Surveys
KW  - Vegetation
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Management
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Wild and Scenic Rivers
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wilderness Management
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wildlife Management
KW  - Kanab Resource Management Area
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/36391654?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KANE+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=KANAB+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KANE+AND+GARFIELD+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, Carlsbad, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 9, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36410070; 13500
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36410070?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 6]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36395220; 13500-080267_0002
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395220?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 6]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36395123; 13500-080267_0001
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36395123?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 6 of 6]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36392641; 13500-080267_0006
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 6
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36392641?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 6]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36391957; 13500-080267_0003
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36391957?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36384501; 13500-080267_0004
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 4
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384501?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 6]
T2  - SUNRISE POWERLINK PROJECT, FROM THE SDG&E IMPERIAL VALLEY SUBSTATION TO SDG&E'S PENASQUITOS SUBSTATION NEAR INTERSTATE 805 IN COASTAL SAN DIEGO (RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT).
AN  - 36383435; 13500-080267_0005
AB  - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way within public land to San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for the construction of a 91-mile 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and a 59-mile 230-kV transmission line extending along the San Diego coast in southern California is proposed. The 500-kV line would extend from the Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to a new Central East Substation southwest of the intersection of County Highways S22 and S2 in central San Diego County. The 230-kV line would extend, both overhead and underground from the Central East Substation to SDG&E's existing Penasquitos Substation in the city of San Diego. This recirculated draft EIS replaces a draft EIS published in January of 2008 on the project, known as the Sunrise Powerlink Project, replaces the earlier document, providing information on significant changes in project size and design that would result in significantly different impacts. The January 2008 draft proposed the construction of a 150-mile 230-kilovolt electrical transmission line from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation near El Centro to SDG&E's Penasquitos Substation near Interstate 805 along the San Diego coast. With respect to the newly proposed transmission system, the applicant has forwarded several route alternatives and considers a No Action Alternative. This recirculated draft EIS also assess a 1,250-megawatt (MW) wind project, to be known as La Rumorosa Wind Project, proposed by Sempra Generation in Mexico, associated transmission lines from the project into the U.S., and a new substation northeast of the town of Jacumba. A wind project and U.S. connection were discussed in the January 2008 draft, but the project was not as well defined then as it is now and the January 2008 draft EIS estimated the project capacity at 25 MW. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new transmission lines and generation capacity would enable the San Diego transmission system to satisfy the reliability requirements of the California Independent System Operator and reduce user costs by improving access to lower cost sources of power available in the desert southwest and reducing reliance on older, less efficient in-area generation. The existence of the transmission line and associated renewable resource generation infrastructure would encourage development of renewable generation in Imperial Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development for the transmission line would disturb wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected plant and animal species, and substantial farmland acreage, including California Department of Conservation farmland and Williams Act lands. The presence of the transmission line would permanently interfere with active agricultural operations. In the Imperial Valley, the transmission line would interfere with aerial spraying. Hundreds of cultural resource sites, including archaeological sites, historic sites, and Native American human remains, would lie within the 150-foot-wide rights-of-way. The presence of transmission structures and corona noise would diminish the recreational value for users of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trial and campers in the Imperial Valley Link. The line would pass through areas with by large minority populations, including Native Americans. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the original draft EIS, see 08-0017D, Volume 32, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080267, Recirculated Draft EIS--810 pages and maps, July 3, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 5
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: DES 07-58
KW  - Archaeological Sites
KW  - Cultural Resources
KW  - Desert Land
KW  - Electric Power
KW  - Electric Generators
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Endangered Species (Plants)
KW  - Environmental Justice
KW  - Farmlands
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Minorities
KW  - Power Plants
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Transmission Lines
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Wilderness
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Solar Energy
KW  - California
KW  - Mexico
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383435?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SUNRISE+POWERLINK+PROJECT%2C+FROM+THE+SDG%26E+IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SUBSTATION+TO+SDG%26E%27S+PENASQUITOS+SUBSTATION+NEAR+INTERSTATE+805+IN+COASTAL+SAN+DIEGO+%28RECIRCULATED+DRAFT+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, Sacramento, California; DOI
N1  - Date revised - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 868223174; 13527-7_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 suborbital launch 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 draft 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.
JF  - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 3
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aerospace
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Spacecraft
KW  - Sonic Booms
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/868223174?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 868223160; 13527-7_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 suborbital launch 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 draft 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.
JF  - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 2
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aerospace
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Spacecraft
KW  - Sonic Booms
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/868223160?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Canadian+Mining+Journal&rft.atitle=ADDING+OUNCES&rft.au=Jenish%2C+D%27Arcy&rft.aulast=Jenish&rft.aufirst=D%27Arcy&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Mining+Journal&rft.issn=00084492&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 3]
T2  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 868223147; 13527-7_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 suborbital launch 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 draft 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.
JF  - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
VL  - 1
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aerospace
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Spacecraft
KW  - Sonic Booms
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/868223147?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=D%27Arcy&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Mining+Journal&rft.issn=00084492&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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, SIERRA AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO.
AN  - 36342470; 13527
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 suborbital launch 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 draft 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.
JF  - EPA number: 080257, 584 pages, June 25, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Air Transportation
KW  - Aerospace
KW  - Aircraft Noise
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Airports
KW  - Employment
KW  - Geologic Surveys
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Helicopters
KW  - Historic Sites
KW  - Land Acquisitions
KW  - Land Use
KW  - Livestock
KW  - Ranges
KW  - Safety
KW  - Safety Analyses
KW  - Spacecraft
KW  - Sonic Booms
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/36342470?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=SOUTHWEST+REGIONAL+SPACEPORT%2C+SIERRA+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 25, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999).
AN  - 36413150; 13487
AB  - PURPOSE: The drilling of new natural gas exploration and development wells on a leased 198,034-acre tract within the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) of Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. The PAPA operators include Alpine Gas Company, Anschultz Exploration Corporation, BP America Production Company, HS Resources, Inc., McMurry Oil Company, Questar Exploration & Production, Ultra Resources, Inc., Yates Petroleum Corporation, Western Gas Resources, Inc., Jonah Gas Gathering Company, and other companies (collectively referred to as the PAPA Operators). The PAPA is located within Townships 29 through 33 North, Ranges 107 through 110 West, 6th Principal Meridian. The area is accessed by U.S. Highway 191 and Wyoming Highway 351. Access to the interior of the PAPA is provided by an existing county and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) road network developed to service homes and ranches located along the Green and New Fork rivers, live stock operators, recreational users, and prior and on-going drilling and production activities. There are currently 457 producing wells on 322 well pads in the PAPA. Collectively, the Pinedale Anticline Operators would continue to explore for natural gas and, where discoveries occurred, the development of gas resources by drilling up to 295 wells on 26 well pads during 2006. Road miles within the PAPA would increase from 176.5 miles to 182.4 miles by the end of 2006. A total of 4,399 additional wells and the associated gathering pipelines and other ancillary facilities would be developed over the life of the PAPA development plan. Drilling estimates were based reasonable expectations by the operators, BLM, and the state that the "tight-gas" formation in the area could be developed at spacing levels of one every 40 acres of 16 wells per square mile. This final supplement to the October 1999 final EIS analyzes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and the applicants' proposal. The supplement was required because the long-term plan of the applicants has changed significantly since the October 1999 record of decision that accompanies the final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to helping meet national demands for natural gas, the project would provide employment for local and regional workers and generally enhance the county economy, which is highly dependent on revenues from oil and gas. Annual property tax paid on production from wells in the PAPA would generate substantial revenue for Sublette County and for the Wyoming School Foundation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New developments would disturb 12,2768 acres of soils and vegetation, which would conflict with the goals of the Sublette County Resource Conservation Zoning District and severely degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Project developments would also displace habitat for sage grouse and bald eagle nesting habitat and endangered fish species inhabiting the Colorado River could be affected by water depletions. Drilling in critical big game winter habitat would occur, though the affected land will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. Forage capacity for livestock would be lost due to disturbance of soils and vegetation. Possibly extensive development in the vicinity of residential areas near Pinedale and along the New Fork River could have significant impacts, including exposure to benzene. Developments could also affect recreational land uses in the area. Visually sensitive areas, including mesa land, could be affected by drilling and related structures. The overall integrity and setting of the Lander Trail would be significantly affected if developments in the vicinity of the trail were extensive. Extensive development would create challenges for protecting water quality and floodplain land, including wetland, associated with the New Fork and Green rivers. Noise levels within 2,800 feet of drilling sites would exceed federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 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 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 07-0022D, Volume 31, Number 1.
JF  - EPA number: 080249, Final Supplemental EIS--422 pages, Appendices--266 pages, Air Quality Technical Document (1)--251 pages, Air Quality Technical Document (2)--278 pages, CD-ROMs (3, June 19, 2008
PY  - 2008
KW  - Energy
KW  - Agency number: FES 00-16
KW  - Air Quality Assessments
KW  - Birds
KW  - Employment
KW  - Endangered Species (Animals)
KW  - Fish
KW  - Floodplains
KW  - Geologic Assessments
KW  - Grazing
KW  - Health Hazard Analyses
KW  - Impact Assessment Methodology
KW  - Impact Monitoring Plans
KW  - Natural Gas
KW  - Noise Standards Violations
KW  - Pipelines
KW  - Reclamation (Mining)
KW  - Reclamation Plans
KW  - Recreation Resources
KW  - Trails
KW  - Visual Resources
KW  - Visual Resources Surveys
KW  - Water Quality
KW  - Water Quality Assessments
KW  - Wells
KW  - Wetlands
KW  - Wildlife Habitat
KW  - Wyoming
KW  - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals
KW  - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance
KW  - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits
KW  - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance
UR  - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413150?accountid=14244
L2  - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-06-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PINEDALE+ANTICLINE+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPLORATION+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1999%29.&rft.title=PINEDALE+ANTICLINE+OIL+AND+GAS+EXPLORATION+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+1999%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 - 2008-12-30
N1  - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 19, 2008
N1  - Last updated - 2011-12-16
ER  - 



TY  - RPRT
T1  - PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999). [Part 4 of 6]
T2  - PINEDALE ANTICLINE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 1999).
AN  - 36402186; 13487-080249_0004